Dataset statistics
| Number of variables | 52 |
|---|---|
| Number of observations | 1308 |
| Missing cells | 32217 |
| Missing cells (%) | 47.4% |
| Duplicate rows | 0 |
| Duplicate rows (%) | 0.0% |
| Total size in memory | 3.9 MiB |
| Average record size in memory | 3.0 KiB |
Variable types
| Numeric | 14 |
|---|---|
| Unsupported | 6 |
| Categorical | 14 |
| URL | 8 |
| Text | 9 |
| Boolean | 1 |
is_answered has constant value "True" | Constant |
migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color has constant value "#0077CC" | Constant |
migrated_from__other_site__site_state has constant value "normal" | Constant |
migrated_from__other_site__site_type has constant value "main_site" | Constant |
_dlt_list_idx is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 6 other fields | High correlation |
_dlt_parent_id is highly overall correlated with accepted_answer_id and 8 other fields | High correlation |
accepted_answer_id is highly overall correlated with _dlt_parent_id and 5 other fields | High correlation |
answer_count is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 6 other fields | High correlation |
closed_date is highly overall correlated with last_activity_date and 3 other fields | High correlation |
closed_reason is highly overall correlated with protected_date | High correlation |
community_owned_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 14 other fields | High correlation |
content_license is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 2 other fields | High correlation |
last_activity_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_parent_id and 10 other fields | High correlation |
last_edit_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_parent_id and 13 other fields | High correlation |
migrated_from__on_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 16 other fields | High correlation |
migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 10 other fields | High correlation |
migrated_from__other_site__launch_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 10 other fields | High correlation |
migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 10 other fields | High correlation |
migrated_from__question_id is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 16 other fields | High correlation |
owner__accept_rate is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date | High correlation |
owner__account_id is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 7 other fields | High correlation |
owner__reputation is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 8 other fields | High correlation |
owner__user_id is highly overall correlated with accepted_answer_id and 13 other fields | High correlation |
owner__user_type is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 4 other fields | High correlation |
protected_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_list_idx and 15 other fields | High correlation |
question_creation_date is highly overall correlated with _dlt_parent_id and 10 other fields | High correlation |
question_id is highly overall correlated with _dlt_parent_id and 10 other fields | High correlation |
question_score is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 3 other fields | High correlation |
view_count is highly overall correlated with community_owned_date and 6 other fields | High correlation |
owner__user_type is highly imbalanced (61.7%) | Imbalance |
content_license is highly imbalanced (82.9%) | Imbalance |
owner__account_id has 74 (5.7%) missing values | Missing |
owner__reputation has 74 (5.7%) missing values | Missing |
owner__user_id has 74 (5.7%) missing values | Missing |
owner__profile_image has 74 (5.7%) missing values | Missing |
owner__link has 74 (5.7%) missing values | Missing |
last_edit_date has 617 (47.2%) missing values | Missing |
content_license has 243 (18.6%) missing values | Missing |
closed_date has 1070 (81.8%) missing values | Missing |
closed_reason has 1070 (81.8%) missing values | Missing |
owner__accept_rate has 762 (58.3%) missing values | Missing |
accepted_answer_id has 714 (54.6%) missing values | Missing |
locked_date has 1308 (100.0%) missing values | Missing |
protected_date has 1304 (99.7%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__launch_date has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__site_state has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__icon_url has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__audience has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__site_url has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__logo_url has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__name has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__other_site__site_type has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__on_date has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
migrated_from__question_id has 1303 (99.6%) missing values | Missing |
community_owned_date has 1305 (99.8%) missing values | Missing |
protected_date is uniformly distributed | Uniform |
migrated_from__on_date is uniformly distributed | Uniform |
migrated_from__question_id is uniformly distributed | Uniform |
community_owned_date is uniformly distributed | Uniform |
question_id has unique values | Unique |
last_activity_date has unique values | Unique |
question_creation_date has unique values | Unique |
link has unique values | Unique |
title has unique values | Unique |
question has unique values | Unique |
_dlt_id has unique values | Unique |
is_accepted is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis | Unsupported |
answer_score is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis | Unsupported |
answer_creation_date is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis | Unsupported |
answer is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis | Unsupported |
locked_date is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis | Unsupported |
gpt35_answer is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis | Unsupported |
question_score has 151 (11.5%) zeros | Zeros |
_dlt_list_idx has 14 (1.1%) zeros | Zeros |
owner__accept_rate has 44 (3.4%) zeros | Zeros |
Reproduction
| Analysis started | 2024-10-06 13:23:03.964345 |
|---|---|
| Analysis finished | 2024-10-06 13:23:51.610468 |
| Duration | 47.65 seconds |
| Software version | ydata-profiling vv4.10.0 |
| Download configuration | config.json |
question_id
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 11152.705 |
| Minimum | 138 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 21937 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 138 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 3564 |
| Q1 | 6951.5 |
| median | 10090.5 |
| Q3 | 15425.5 |
| 95-th percentile | 21110.4 |
| Maximum | 21937 |
| Range | 21799 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 8474 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 5392.991 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.48355902 |
| Kurtosis | -0.90502722 |
| Mean | 11152.705 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 4062 |
| Skewness | 0.2804143 |
| Sum | 14587738 |
| Variance | 29084352 |
| Monotonicity | Strictly increasing |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 138 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14152 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14340 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14329 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14320 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14318 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14317 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14314 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14306 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14278 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (1298) | 1298 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 138 | 1 | |
| 219 | 1 | |
| 249 | 1 | |
| 341 | 1 | |
| 424 | 1 | |
| 470 | 1 | |
| 617 | 1 | |
| 728 | 1 | |
| 739 | 1 | |
| 777 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 21937 | 1 | |
| 21915 | 1 | |
| 21904 | 1 | |
| 21889 | 1 | |
| 21882 | 1 | |
| 21867 | 1 | |
| 21865 | 1 | |
| 21821 | 1 | |
| 21812 | 1 | |
| 21805 | 1 |
is_accepted
Unsupported
REJECTED UNSUPPORTED
| Missing | 0 |
|---|---|
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 153.4 KiB |
answer_score
Unsupported
REJECTED UNSUPPORTED
| Missing | 0 |
|---|---|
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 153.4 KiB |
answer_creation_date
Unsupported
REJECTED UNSUPPORTED
| Missing | 0 |
|---|---|
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 153.4 KiB |
answer
Unsupported
REJECTED UNSUPPORTED
| Missing | 0 |
|---|---|
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 153.4 KiB |
owner__account_id
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 730 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 59.2% |
| Missing | 74 |
| Missing (%) | 5.7% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 2246519.9 |
| Minimum | 1083 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 5830769 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1083 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 63345 |
| Q1 | 961274 |
| median | 1851414.5 |
| Q3 | 3682744.5 |
| 95-th percentile | 5046026.3 |
| Maximum | 5830769 |
| Range | 5829686 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 2721470.5 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 1655119.6 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.73674825 |
| Kurtosis | -1.0975196 |
| Mean | 2246519.9 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 1341173.5 |
| Skewness | 0.39312512 |
| Sum | 2.7722055 × 109 |
| Variance | 2.7394209 × 1012 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 961274 | 164 | 12.5% |
| 4100194 | 13 | 1.0% |
| 4023375 | 12 | 0.9% |
| 1804110 | 11 | 0.8% |
| 1036486 | 10 | 0.8% |
| 3568673 | 8 | 0.6% |
| 2611917 | 8 | 0.6% |
| 897451 | 7 | 0.5% |
| 293187 | 7 | 0.5% |
| 2421170 | 7 | 0.5% |
| Other values (720) | 987 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1083 | 3 | |
| 1149 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1781 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 2515 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 2728 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 4174 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 7856 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 8372 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 9754 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 11972 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5830769 | 1 | |
| 5826580 | 1 | |
| 5818034 | 1 | |
| 5788059 | 1 | |
| 5770495 | 1 | |
| 5768940 | 1 | |
| 5739648 | 1 | |
| 5729854 | 2 | |
| 5719397 | 1 | |
| 5704281 | 1 |
owner__reputation
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 285 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 23.1% |
| Missing | 74 |
| Missing (%) | 5.7% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 6939.9417 |
| Minimum | 1 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 48153 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 18.3 |
| Q1 | 121 |
| median | 239 |
| Q3 | 1108 |
| 95-th percentile | 48153 |
| Maximum | 48153 |
| Range | 48152 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 987 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 16189.964 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 2.3328675 |
| Kurtosis | 2.6282677 |
| Mean | 6939.9417 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 197 |
| Skewness | 2.1414049 |
| Sum | 8563888 |
| Variance | 2.6211494 × 108 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 48153 | 164 | 12.5% |
| 11 | 26 | 2.0% |
| 111 | 19 | 1.5% |
| 21 | 19 | 1.5% |
| 31 | 17 | 1.3% |
| 123 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 121 | 15 | 1.1% |
| 143 | 14 | 1.1% |
| 1 | 14 | 1.1% |
| 41 | 14 | 1.1% |
| Other values (275) | 916 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 14 | |
| 3 | 4 | 0.3% |
| 5 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 9 | 7 | 0.5% |
| 11 | 26 | |
| 13 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 15 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 17 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 19 | 9 | 0.7% |
| 21 | 19 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 48153 | 164 | |
| 11792 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 10262 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 9670 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 8475 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 8092 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 7447 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 7405 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 5055 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 4640 | 4 | 0.3% |
owner__user_id
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 730 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 59.2% |
| Missing | 74 |
| Missing (%) | 5.7% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 4825.389 |
| Minimum | 34 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 13778 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 34 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 933 |
| Q1 | 2076 |
| median | 4182.5 |
| Q3 | 6782.25 |
| 95-th percentile | 12081.1 |
| Maximum | 13778 |
| Range | 13744 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 4706.25 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 3469.281 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.71896402 |
| Kurtosis | -0.30991565 |
| Mean | 4825.389 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 2466.5 |
| Skewness | 0.73496257 |
| Sum | 5954530 |
| Variance | 12035911 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 933 | 164 | 12.5% |
| 5686 | 13 | 1.0% |
| 5620 | 12 | 0.9% |
| 2334 | 11 | 0.8% |
| 1127 | 10 | 0.8% |
| 4872 | 8 | 0.6% |
| 3676 | 8 | 0.6% |
| 1660 | 7 | 0.5% |
| 945 | 7 | 0.5% |
| 8090 | 7 | 0.5% |
| Other values (720) | 987 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 34 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 65 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 73 | 3 | |
| 81 | 6 | |
| 84 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 85 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 87 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 96 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 101 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 140 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 13778 | 1 | |
| 13765 | 1 | |
| 13747 | 1 | |
| 13730 | 1 | |
| 13699 | 1 | |
| 13697 | 1 | |
| 13679 | 1 | |
| 13678 | 1 | |
| 13677 | 1 | |
| 13664 | 1 |
owner__user_type
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION IMBALANCE
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 86.2 KiB |
| registered | |
|---|---|
| unregistered | 111 |
| does_not_exist | 74 |
| moderator | 6 |
Length
| Max length | 14 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 10 |
| Mean length | 10.391437 |
| Min length | 9 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 13592 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 14 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | moderator |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | registered |
| 3rd row | registered |
| 4th row | registered |
| 5th row | registered |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| registered | 1117 | |
| unregistered | 111 | 8.5% |
| does_not_exist | 74 | 5.7% |
| moderator | 6 | 0.5% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| registered | 1117 | |
| unregistered | 111 | 8.5% |
| does_not_exist | 74 | 5.7% |
| moderator | 6 | 0.5% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 3838 | |
| r | 2468 | |
| t | 1382 | 10.2% |
| s | 1376 | 10.1% |
| d | 1308 | 9.6% |
| i | 1302 | 9.6% |
| g | 1228 | 9.0% |
| n | 185 | 1.4% |
| o | 160 | 1.2% |
| _ | 148 | 1.1% |
| Other values (4) | 197 | 1.4% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 13592 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 3838 | |
| r | 2468 | |
| t | 1382 | 10.2% |
| s | 1376 | 10.1% |
| d | 1308 | 9.6% |
| i | 1302 | 9.6% |
| g | 1228 | 9.0% |
| n | 185 | 1.4% |
| o | 160 | 1.2% |
| _ | 148 | 1.1% |
| Other values (4) | 197 | 1.4% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 13592 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 3838 | |
| r | 2468 | |
| t | 1382 | 10.2% |
| s | 1376 | 10.1% |
| d | 1308 | 9.6% |
| i | 1302 | 9.6% |
| g | 1228 | 9.0% |
| n | 185 | 1.4% |
| o | 160 | 1.2% |
| _ | 148 | 1.1% |
| Other values (4) | 197 | 1.4% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 13592 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 3838 | |
| r | 2468 | |
| t | 1382 | 10.2% |
| s | 1376 | 10.1% |
| d | 1308 | 9.6% |
| i | 1302 | 9.6% |
| g | 1228 | 9.0% |
| n | 185 | 1.4% |
| o | 160 | 1.2% |
| _ | 148 | 1.1% |
| Other values (4) | 197 | 1.4% |
MISSING
| Distinct | 698 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 56.6% |
| Missing | 74 |
| Missing (%) | 5.7% |
| Memory size | 161.0 KiB |
| https://i.sstatic.net/sw7YK.jpg?s=256 | |
|---|---|
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9a247bd4f286597aa21bc436373810e8?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 30 |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/66ce1a2c624a552fb4cc62aefc615822?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 15 |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/33943aadafe6e0420eb64b62ee55997a?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 13 |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e857290c77388a243f93cead9ec41438?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 12 |
| Other values (693) | |
| (Missing) | 74 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://i.sstatic.net/sw7YK.jpg?s=256 | 164 | 12.5% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9a247bd4f286597aa21bc436373810e8?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 30 | 2.3% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/66ce1a2c624a552fb4cc62aefc615822?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 15 | 1.1% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/33943aadafe6e0420eb64b62ee55997a?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 13 | 1.0% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e857290c77388a243f93cead9ec41438?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 12 | 0.9% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9f75294a1eb551df07f6ed823fe3f730?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | 11 | 0.8% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6bdb68f7d3ecf581a55a2ed4e6aeaafc?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | 10 | 0.8% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/2f0de415b2a26bd3ffcb87dd52d41a0a?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | 8 | 0.6% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9a09a5b26abbcbe43c896d2b6301b733?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 8 | 0.6% |
| https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/b7219254970581e53d3b2b162f7f50f8?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | 7 | 0.5% |
| Other values (688) | 956 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 1234 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| www.gravatar.com | 809 | |
| i.sstatic.net | 397 | |
| graph.facebook.com | 20 | 1.5% |
| lh5.googleusercontent.com | 5 | 0.4% |
| lh3.googleusercontent.com | 2 | 0.2% |
| lh6.googleusercontent.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /sw7YK.jpg | 164 | 12.5% |
| /avatar/9a247bd4f286597aa21bc436373810e8 | 30 | 2.3% |
| /avatar/66ce1a2c624a552fb4cc62aefc615822 | 15 | 1.1% |
| /avatar/33943aadafe6e0420eb64b62ee55997a | 13 | 1.0% |
| /avatar/e857290c77388a243f93cead9ec41438 | 12 | 0.9% |
| /avatar/9f75294a1eb551df07f6ed823fe3f730 | 11 | 0.8% |
| /avatar/6bdb68f7d3ecf581a55a2ed4e6aeaafc | 10 | 0.8% |
| /avatar/2f0de415b2a26bd3ffcb87dd52d41a0a | 8 | 0.6% |
| /avatar/9a09a5b26abbcbe43c896d2b6301b733 | 8 | 0.6% |
| /avatar/46bcb5d2018194c9beb884b6797e57e0 | 7 | 0.5% |
| Other values (688) | 956 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | 515 | |
| s=256 | 397 | |
| s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | 294 | |
| type=large | 20 | 1.5% |
| sz=256 | 8 | 0.6% |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1234 | ||
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Distinct | 748 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 57.2% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 85.1 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 29 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 20 |
| Mean length | 9.4625382 |
| Min length | 3 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 12377 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 73 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 584 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 44.6% |
Sample
| 1st row | Joseph Weissman |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Tom Morris |
| 3rd row | Edward Black |
| 4th row | Ruben |
| 5th row | Stefano Borini |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| mozibur | 164 | 9.0% |
| ullah | 164 | 9.0% |
| user6917 | 29 | 1.6% |
| george | 16 | 0.9% |
| user132181 | 13 | 0.7% |
| user128932 | 12 | 0.7% |
| lukas | 11 | 0.6% |
| michael | 11 | 0.6% |
| draks | 10 | 0.5% |
| 10 | 0.5% | |
| Other values (907) | 1379 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 972 | 7.9% |
| a | 928 | 7.5% |
| r | 823 | 6.6% |
| i | 714 | 5.8% |
| l | 687 | 5.6% |
| o | 661 | 5.3% |
| s | 630 | 5.1% |
| u | 594 | 4.8% |
| 511 | 4.1% | |
| n | 484 | 3.9% |
| Other values (63) | 5373 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 12377 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 972 | 7.9% |
| a | 928 | 7.5% |
| r | 823 | 6.6% |
| i | 714 | 5.8% |
| l | 687 | 5.6% |
| o | 661 | 5.3% |
| s | 630 | 5.1% |
| u | 594 | 4.8% |
| 511 | 4.1% | |
| n | 484 | 3.9% |
| Other values (63) | 5373 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 12377 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 972 | 7.9% |
| a | 928 | 7.5% |
| r | 823 | 6.6% |
| i | 714 | 5.8% |
| l | 687 | 5.6% |
| o | 661 | 5.3% |
| s | 630 | 5.1% |
| u | 594 | 4.8% |
| 511 | 4.1% | |
| n | 484 | 3.9% |
| Other values (63) | 5373 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 12377 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 972 | 7.9% |
| a | 928 | 7.5% |
| r | 823 | 6.6% |
| i | 714 | 5.8% |
| l | 687 | 5.6% |
| o | 661 | 5.3% |
| s | 630 | 5.1% |
| u | 594 | 4.8% |
| 511 | 4.1% | |
| n | 484 | 3.9% |
| Other values (63) | 5373 |
owner__link
URL
MISSING
| Distinct | 730 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 59.2% |
| Missing | 74 |
| Missing (%) | 5.7% |
| Memory size | 140.3 KiB |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/mozibur-ullah | |
|---|---|
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5686/user132181 | 13 |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5620/user128932 | 12 |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/2334/lukas | 11 |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1127/draks | 10 |
| Other values (725) | |
| (Missing) | 74 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/mozibur-ullah | 164 | 12.5% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5686/user132181 | 13 | 1.0% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5620/user128932 | 12 | 0.9% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/2334/lukas | 11 | 0.8% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1127/draks | 10 | 0.8% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4872/lalessandro | 8 | 0.6% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/3676/hal | 8 | 0.6% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1660/neil-meyer | 7 | 0.5% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/945/mirzhan-irkegulov | 7 | 0.5% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8090/michael-lee | 7 | 0.5% |
| Other values (720) | 987 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 1234 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| philosophy.stackexchange.com | 1234 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /users/933/mozibur-ullah | 164 | 12.5% |
| /users/5686/user132181 | 13 | 1.0% |
| /users/5620/user128932 | 12 | 0.9% |
| /users/2334/lukas | 11 | 0.8% |
| /users/1127/draks | 10 | 0.8% |
| /users/4872/lalessandro | 8 | 0.6% |
| /users/3676/hal | 8 | 0.6% |
| /users/945/mirzhan-irkegulov | 7 | 0.5% |
| /users/6699/that-guy | 7 | 0.5% |
| /users/1660/neil-meyer | 7 | 0.5% |
| Other values (720) | 987 | |
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1234 | ||
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1234 | ||
| (Missing) | 74 | 5.7% |
is_answered
Boolean
CONSTANT
| Distinct | 1 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.1% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 1.4 KiB |
| True |
|---|
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| True | 1308 |
view_count
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION
| Distinct | 819 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 62.6% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1184.7806 |
| Minimum | 25 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 92926 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 25 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 91.35 |
| Q1 | 184 |
| median | 355 |
| Q3 | 900.75 |
| 95-th percentile | 3744.55 |
| Maximum | 92926 |
| Range | 92901 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 716.75 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 3902.4217 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 3.2937927 |
| Kurtosis | 259.20413 |
| Mean | 1184.7806 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 221 |
| Skewness | 13.384718 |
| Sum | 1549693 |
| Variance | 15228895 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 136 | 8 | 0.6% |
| 141 | 7 | 0.5% |
| 101 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 217 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 106 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 152 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 109 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 104 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 303 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 168 | 6 | 0.5% |
| Other values (809) | 1245 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 25 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 42 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 46 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 48 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 51 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 52 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 54 | 2 | |
| 56 | 2 | |
| 58 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 60 | 4 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 92926 | 1 | |
| 45322 | 1 | |
| 33313 | 1 | |
| 30478 | 1 | |
| 29531 | 1 | |
| 29011 | 1 | |
| 26436 | 1 | |
| 25622 | 1 | |
| 22309 | 1 | |
| 19021 | 1 |
answer_count
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION
| Distinct | 12 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.9% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 2.1353211 |
| Minimum | 1 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 12 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 1 |
| Q1 | 1 |
| median | 2 |
| Q3 | 3 |
| 95-th percentile | 5 |
| Maximum | 12 |
| Range | 11 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 2 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 1.4655044 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.68631572 |
| Kurtosis | 7.1550749 |
| Mean | 2.1353211 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 1 |
| Skewness | 2.1765809 |
| Sum | 2793 |
| Variance | 2.1477033 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=12)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 561 | |
| 2 | 367 | |
| 3 | 203 | 15.5% |
| 4 | 95 | 7.3% |
| 5 | 42 | 3.2% |
| 6 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 7 | 9 | 0.7% |
| 8 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 10 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 9 | 3 | 0.2% |
| Other values (2) | 2 | 0.2% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 561 | |
| 2 | 367 | |
| 3 | 203 | 15.5% |
| 4 | 95 | 7.3% |
| 5 | 42 | 3.2% |
| 6 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 7 | 9 | 0.7% |
| 8 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 9 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 10 | 5 | 0.4% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 12 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 11 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 10 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 9 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 8 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 7 | 9 | 0.7% |
| 6 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 5 | 42 | 3.2% |
| 4 | 95 | |
| 3 | 203 |
question_score
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION ZEROS
| Distinct | 28 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 2.1% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 2.6995413 |
| Minimum | -5 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 28 |
| Zeros | 151 |
| Zeros (%) | 11.5% |
| Negative | 89 |
| Negative (%) | 6.8% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | -5 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | -1 |
| Q1 | 1 |
| median | 2 |
| Q3 | 4 |
| 95-th percentile | 8 |
| Maximum | 28 |
| Range | 33 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 3 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 3.1192715 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 1.155482 |
| Kurtosis | 11.757751 |
| Mean | 2.6995413 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 1 |
| Skewness | 2.3779007 |
| Sum | 3531 |
| Variance | 9.7298544 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=28)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 242 | |
| 2 | 238 | |
| 3 | 208 | |
| 0 | 151 | |
| 4 | 143 | |
| 5 | 82 | 6.3% |
| 6 | 56 | 4.3% |
| -1 | 52 | 4.0% |
| 7 | 27 | 2.1% |
| 9 | 21 | 1.6% |
| Other values (18) | 88 | 6.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| -5 | 1 | 0.1% |
| -4 | 3 | 0.2% |
| -3 | 18 | 1.4% |
| -2 | 15 | 1.1% |
| -1 | 52 | 4.0% |
| 0 | 151 | |
| 1 | 242 | |
| 2 | 238 | |
| 3 | 208 | |
| 4 | 143 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 28 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 27 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 23 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 22 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 19 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 18 | 3 | |
| 17 | 3 | |
| 15 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14 | 5 | |
| 13 | 2 | 0.2% |
last_activity_date
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1.3946764 × 109 |
| Minimum | 1.3517182 × 109 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 1.4247771 × 109 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1.3517182 × 109 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 1.3569237 × 109 |
| Q1 | 1.3781618 × 109 |
| median | 1.3987664 × 109 |
| Q3 | 1.4116272 × 109 |
| 95-th percentile | 1.4218803 × 109 |
| Maximum | 1.4247771 × 109 |
| Range | 73058854 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 33465346 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 20450867 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.014663521 |
| Kurtosis | -0.91397256 |
| Mean | 1.3946764 × 109 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 14808462 |
| Skewness | -0.47136828 |
| Sum | 1.8242367 × 1012 |
| Variance | 4.1823796 × 1014 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1369382427 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1406996677 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1404380207 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1404016510 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1404028129 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1404339085 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1406758010 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1406560394 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403938781 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403861850 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (1298) | 1298 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1351718246 | 1 | |
| 1352158249 | 1 | |
| 1352335268 | 1 | |
| 1352341568 | 1 | |
| 1352480054 | 1 | |
| 1352568080 | 1 | |
| 1352646105 | 1 | |
| 1352724108 | 1 | |
| 1352730090 | 1 | |
| 1352872851 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1424777100 | 1 | |
| 1424750742 | 1 | |
| 1424732315 | 1 | |
| 1424639817 | 1 | |
| 1424516389 | 1 | |
| 1424505766 | 1 | |
| 1424495963 | 1 | |
| 1424466562 | 1 | |
| 1424463313 | 1 | |
| 1424456664 | 1 |
question_creation_date
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1.3882857 × 109 |
| Minimum | 1.3074943 × 109 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 1.424661 × 109 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1.3074943 × 109 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 1.3462406 × 109 |
| Q1 | 1.3690275 × 109 |
| median | 1.3940573 × 109 |
| Q3 | 1.4088282 × 109 |
| 95-th percentile | 1.4207724 × 109 |
| Maximum | 1.424661 × 109 |
| Range | 1.1716667 × 108 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 39800744 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 25408982 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.018302416 |
| Kurtosis | 0.00852791 |
| Mean | 1.3882857 × 109 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 18684815 |
| Skewness | -0.72093874 |
| Sum | 1.8158777 × 1012 |
| Variance | 6.4561637 × 1014 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1307494334 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403248886 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1404097157 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1404013466 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403988348 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403978482 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403976086 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403958858 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403910704 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1403802528 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (1298) | 1298 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1307494334 | 1 | |
| 1307573085 | 1 | |
| 1307647496 | 1 | |
| 1307967980 | 1 | |
| 1308253488 | 1 | |
| 1308330216 | 1 | |
| 1308935298 | 1 | |
| 1309995745 | 1 | |
| 1310130089 | 1 | |
| 1310675670 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1424661006 | 1 | |
| 1424567097 | 1 | |
| 1424465902 | 1 | |
| 1424414778 | 1 | |
| 1424371706 | 1 | |
| 1424276339 | 1 | |
| 1424262437 | 1 | |
| 1424055615 | 1 | |
| 1424032038 | 1 | |
| 1424013331 | 1 |
last_edit_date
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 615 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 89.0% |
| Missing | 617 |
| Missing (%) | 47.2% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1.4040096 × 109 |
| Minimum | 1.3074952 × 109 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 1.5923829 × 109 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1.3074952 × 109 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 1.3527928 × 109 |
| Q1 | 1.368593 × 109 |
| median | 1.3975788 × 109 |
| Q3 | 1.4138227 × 109 |
| 95-th percentile | 1.4920873 × 109 |
| Maximum | 1.5923829 × 109 |
| Range | 2.8488772 × 108 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 45229725 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 54586146 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.038878755 |
| Kurtosis | 4.0439972 |
| Mean | 1.4040096 × 109 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 22528394 |
| Skewness | 1.8737345 |
| Sum | 9.7017063 × 1011 |
| Variance | 2.9796473 × 1015 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1492087339 | 34 | 2.6% |
| 1592382894 | 30 | 2.3% |
| 1492087338 | 12 | 0.9% |
| 1492085961 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 1492087213 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 1401671034 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1400971459 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1401211164 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1401134402 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1401180611 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (605) | 605 | |
| (Missing) | 617 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1307495178 | 1 | |
| 1307708401 | 1 | |
| 1308015364 | 1 | |
| 1308216765 | 1 | |
| 1309029329 | 1 | |
| 1310685092 | 1 | |
| 1313724942 | 1 | |
| 1314289532 | 1 | |
| 1319903271 | 1 | |
| 1320853661 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1592382894 | 30 | |
| 1492087673 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1492087420 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1492087339 | 34 | |
| 1492087338 | 12 | 0.9% |
| 1492087213 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 1492085961 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 1490005115 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1489679313 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1424725113 | 1 | 0.1% |
content_license
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION IMBALANCE MISSING
| Distinct | 2 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.2% |
| Missing | 243 |
| Missing (%) | 18.6% |
| Memory size | 85.2 KiB |
| CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
|---|---|
| CC BY-SA 4.0 | 27 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 12780 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
| 3rd row | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
| 4th row | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
| 5th row | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| CC BY-SA 3.0 | 1038 | |
| CC BY-SA 4.0 | 27 | 2.1% |
| (Missing) | 243 | 18.6% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| cc | 1065 | |
| by-sa | 1065 | |
| 3.0 | 1038 | |
| 4.0 | 27 | 0.8% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 2130 | |
| 2130 | ||
| B | 1065 | |
| Y | 1065 | |
| - | 1065 | |
| S | 1065 | |
| A | 1065 | |
| . | 1065 | |
| 0 | 1065 | |
| 3 | 1038 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 12780 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 2130 | |
| 2130 | ||
| B | 1065 | |
| Y | 1065 | |
| - | 1065 | |
| S | 1065 | |
| A | 1065 | |
| . | 1065 | |
| 0 | 1065 | |
| 3 | 1038 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 12780 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 2130 | |
| 2130 | ||
| B | 1065 | |
| Y | 1065 | |
| - | 1065 | |
| S | 1065 | |
| A | 1065 | |
| . | 1065 | |
| 0 | 1065 | |
| 3 | 1038 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 12780 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 2130 | |
| 2130 | ||
| B | 1065 | |
| Y | 1065 | |
| - | 1065 | |
| S | 1065 | |
| A | 1065 | |
| . | 1065 | |
| 0 | 1065 | |
| 3 | 1038 |
link
URL
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 207.3 KiB |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining | 1 |
|---|---|
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14152/classical-and-medieval-scholars-on-modal-logic | 1 |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14340/why-is-orangutan-meat-not-good-to-eat | 1 |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14329/do-sentences-that-are-selection-violations-have-truth-values | 1 |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14320/what-is-the-relationship-of-if-a-then-b-and-a-only-if-b | 1 |
| Other values (1303) |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14152/classical-and-medieval-scholars-on-modal-logic | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14340/why-is-orangutan-meat-not-good-to-eat | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14329/do-sentences-that-are-selection-violations-have-truth-values | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14320/what-is-the-relationship-of-if-a-then-b-and-a-only-if-b | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14318/does-the-problem-of-underspecified-conditional-antecedents-imply-that-many-ut | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14317/are-the-truths-of-euclidean-plane-geometry-contingent-truths | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14314/nietzsche-and-the-death-of-god | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14306/should-a-king-be-restrict-to-marry-a-queen-that-is-also-a-philosopher-in-platos | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14278/why-does-it-matter-whether-knowledge-is-synthetic-or-analytic | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (1298) | 1298 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 1308 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| philosophy.stackexchange.com | 1308 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14152/classical-and-medieval-scholars-on-modal-logic | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14340/why-is-orangutan-meat-not-good-to-eat | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14329/do-sentences-that-are-selection-violations-have-truth-values | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14320/what-is-the-relationship-of-if-a-then-b-and-a-only-if-b | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14318/does-the-problem-of-underspecified-conditional-antecedents-imply-that-many-ut | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14317/are-the-truths-of-euclidean-plane-geometry-contingent-truths | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14314/nietzsche-and-the-death-of-god | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14306/should-a-king-be-restrict-to-marry-a-queen-that-is-also-a-philosopher-in-platos | 1 | 0.1% |
| /questions/14278/why-does-it-matter-whether-knowledge-is-synthetic-or-analytic | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (1298) | 1298 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1308 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1308 |
title
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 151.7 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 161 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 109 |
| Mean length | 59.173547 |
| Min length | 15 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 77399 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 103 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1308 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | Are the unexamined lives of others worth examining? |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Do Kierkegaard's non-pseudonymous writings enable one to understand Kierkegaard's philosophy much? |
| 3rd row | How has the philosophy of war changed since Sun Tzu's The Art of War? |
| 4th row | Which contemporary philosophers deal with the concept of honour without dismissing it out of hand? |
| 5th row | What are the connections between philosophy and semantic web? |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| the | 543 | 4.6% |
| of | 504 | 4.3% |
| is | 418 | 3.5% |
| a | 331 | 2.8% |
| to | 279 | 2.4% |
| what | 251 | 2.1% |
| and | 219 | 1.8% |
| in | 204 | 1.7% |
| are | 141 | 1.2% |
| does | 130 | 1.1% |
| Other values (3099) | 8824 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10536 | ||
| e | 6953 | 9.0% |
| t | 5701 | 7.4% |
| i | 5307 | 6.9% |
| o | 5255 | 6.8% |
| a | 4830 | 6.2% |
| n | 4458 | 5.8% |
| s | 4349 | 5.6% |
| r | 3294 | 4.3% |
| h | 2764 | 3.6% |
| Other values (93) | 23952 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 77399 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10536 | ||
| e | 6953 | 9.0% |
| t | 5701 | 7.4% |
| i | 5307 | 6.9% |
| o | 5255 | 6.8% |
| a | 4830 | 6.2% |
| n | 4458 | 5.8% |
| s | 4349 | 5.6% |
| r | 3294 | 4.3% |
| h | 2764 | 3.6% |
| Other values (93) | 23952 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 77399 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10536 | ||
| e | 6953 | 9.0% |
| t | 5701 | 7.4% |
| i | 5307 | 6.9% |
| o | 5255 | 6.8% |
| a | 4830 | 6.2% |
| n | 4458 | 5.8% |
| s | 4349 | 5.6% |
| r | 3294 | 4.3% |
| h | 2764 | 3.6% |
| Other values (93) | 23952 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 77399 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10536 | ||
| e | 6953 | 9.0% |
| t | 5701 | 7.4% |
| i | 5307 | 6.9% |
| o | 5255 | 6.8% |
| a | 4830 | 6.2% |
| n | 4458 | 5.8% |
| s | 4349 | 5.6% |
| r | 3294 | 4.3% |
| h | 2764 | 3.6% |
| Other values (93) | 23952 |
question
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 1.1 MiB |
Length
| Max length | 2319 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 942 |
| Mean length | 664.07645 |
| Min length | 56 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 868612 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 182 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1308 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | <p>Socrates continually admonished his interlocutors to become more introspective, arguing passionately for self-examination:</p> <blockquote> <p>The unexamined life is not worth living.</p> </blockquote> <p>But an examined life is painful, and necessitates an involvement with real problems. This is why it's worth living -- the unreflective are easily trapped into a living death of the mind by mythology, as the reflective sometimes are by ideology. In both cares we are deadened, sleepwalking through our lives blind and deaf, incapable of interacting with the world as it actually is much less imagining the world as it should be.</p> <p>Now, we know of course that Socrates did not refrain from commenting on the generally unreflective character of his fellow Athenians. This is really the heart of my question. Certain reactionary critics might suggest that it's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values, but why should you go about examining the beliefs and values of others?</p> |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | <p>As I read them, Kierkegaard's writings can be split into two groups: the mostly philosophical psuedonymous, and more theological non-pseudonymous works.</p> <p>I have read primarily the pseudonymous works (<em>Either-Or</em>, <em>Concluding Unscientific Postscript</em>, <em>Fear and Trembling</em>) and a few other bits and pieces (including <em>The Book on Adler</em> and the <em>Two Ages</em> review).</p> <p>So I'm wondering, do the non-pseudonymous works (the "discourses" and so on) add much to the understanding of the pseudonymous/philosophical works to justify spending time reading them?</p> |
| 3rd row | <p><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_war" rel="nofollow">The Art of War</a></em>, an ancient military treatise written by Sun Tzu, is composed of thirteen chapters detailing strategies for war ranging from simply laying plans to the extensive use of fire and spies against one's enemies. For centuries, it has been regarded as the definite reading for military strategists, enthusiasts, and warriors of all nature.</p> <p>It's readings have been taken and adapted to seemingly unrelated fields, such as business, and has influenced great leaders and military men such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon" rel="nofollow">Napoleon Bonaparte</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur" rel="nofollow">General Douglas MacArthur</a>.</p> <p>My question is this: Since being written in ancient China, there have been many important advances in the technology of war, such as the invention of gunpowder, as well as many important militaristic events that may have influenced the world's views on war, such as the Mongol invasion and World War II. <strong>Because of these things, are there any more recent treatises or developments on the philosophy of war that military enthusiasts and strategists should consider?</strong></p> |
| 4th row | <p>Whenever I read about honour (the evaluation of a person's social status as judged by that individual's community), it is usually in a negative context (e.g., honour killings) or strictly comparative (e.g., cultures of guilt versus cultures of honour).</p> <p>This comes as a bit of a surprise, as my personal (though probably somewhat naïve) view is that honour has been an important concept throughout our evolution. Societies of law, on the other hand, came about rather late by comparison.</p> <p>The Stack Exchange network, for example, apparently thrives quite well on its reputation system, and the Area 51 "commitment" that all of you present here are upholding would be worthless if not for the "dishonor" of flouting commitments.</p> <p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure" rel="noreferrer">Hagakure</a> may be one such important ancient code of honour, although I don't know whether there is much reasoning behind it (or other accounts of Bushido). When I watched Ghost Dog, it felt pretty deep, though ;-)</p> <p>Specifically, I'm curious if there are any thinkers that don't (out of hand) dismiss the concept of honour as inferior to the rule of law or conscience-based dignity. I would also be interested in contemporary thinkers who themselves come from a culture of honour and choose to embrace it, rather than dismiss it, but it's probably hard to find such people in academia. Anyone have any leads?</p> |
| 5th row | <p>I worked with semantic web technology, and got interested in philosophy out of it. In semantic web, concepts such as semantics, ontologies, and logical inferences are fundamental to understand the technical discipline and make the best out of it. Clearly, all this conceptual framework must arise from philosophy, and specifically from some part of it. </p> <p>I would like to know the historical works and personalities which inspired the vision that then became the basis for the semantic web, from the root of philosophical discussion (e.g. greece) to the modern day.</p> |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| the | 5930 | 4.5% |
| of | 4067 | 3.1% |
| a | 3744 | 2.8% |
| to | 3343 | 2.5% |
| is | 3300 | 2.5% |
| that | 2589 | 1.9% |
| and | 2507 | 1.9% |
| in | 2212 | 1.7% |
| i | 1553 | 1.2% |
| it | 1531 | 1.2% |
| Other values (15766) | 102018 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 129225 | ||
| e | 77588 | 8.9% |
| t | 61461 | 7.1% |
| o | 51971 | 6.0% |
| i | 51067 | 5.9% |
| a | 48926 | 5.6% |
| n | 45275 | 5.2% |
| s | 44952 | 5.2% |
| r | 35232 | 4.1% |
| h | 31633 | 3.6% |
| Other values (172) | 291282 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 868612 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 129225 | ||
| e | 77588 | 8.9% |
| t | 61461 | 7.1% |
| o | 51971 | 6.0% |
| i | 51067 | 5.9% |
| a | 48926 | 5.6% |
| n | 45275 | 5.2% |
| s | 44952 | 5.2% |
| r | 35232 | 4.1% |
| h | 31633 | 3.6% |
| Other values (172) | 291282 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 868612 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 129225 | ||
| e | 77588 | 8.9% |
| t | 61461 | 7.1% |
| o | 51971 | 6.0% |
| i | 51067 | 5.9% |
| a | 48926 | 5.6% |
| n | 45275 | 5.2% |
| s | 44952 | 5.2% |
| r | 35232 | 4.1% |
| h | 31633 | 3.6% |
| Other values (172) | 291282 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 868612 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 129225 | ||
| e | 77588 | 8.9% |
| t | 61461 | 7.1% |
| o | 51971 | 6.0% |
| i | 51067 | 5.9% |
| a | 48926 | 5.6% |
| n | 45275 | 5.2% |
| s | 44952 | 5.2% |
| r | 35232 | 4.1% |
| h | 31633 | 3.6% |
| Other values (172) | 291282 |
_dlt_parent_id
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION
| Distinct | 18 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 1.4% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 90.8 KiB |
| QkWy8ugEKgm1gw | 87 |
|---|---|
| V9RjXY6i9PsPNQ | 85 |
| +E/N7KAOOrVU9A | 85 |
| Z63wnEmT1Fp7OA | 79 |
| I0LcgHFy3mRE8A | 77 |
| Other values (13) |
Length
| Max length | 14 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 14 |
| Mean length | 14 |
| Min length | 14 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 18312 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 63 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | hqFlxMH/7Pednw |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | /o7AnFeX3QJGXA |
| 3rd row | U+yLPbRs6dG2qw |
| 4th row | QO5Kg7FUAjOzCg |
| 5th row | QkWy8ugEKgm1gw |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| QkWy8ugEKgm1gw | 87 | 6.7% |
| V9RjXY6i9PsPNQ | 85 | 6.5% |
| +E/N7KAOOrVU9A | 85 | 6.5% |
| Z63wnEmT1Fp7OA | 79 | 6.0% |
| I0LcgHFy3mRE8A | 77 | 5.9% |
| w9IX1dwGLGgWBw | 77 | 5.9% |
| Zo08PcjuVLwhdw | 77 | 5.9% |
| /o7AnFeX3QJGXA | 76 | 5.8% |
| FQtnu0HgC1EK0Q | 76 | 5.8% |
| hqFlxMH/7Pednw | 76 | 5.8% |
| Other values (8) | 513 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| qkwy8ugekgm1gw | 87 | 6.7% |
| e/n7kaoorvu9a | 85 | 6.5% |
| v9rjxy6i9pspnq | 85 | 6.5% |
| z63wnemt1fp7oa | 79 | 6.0% |
| i0lcghfy3mre8a | 77 | 5.9% |
| w9ix1dwglggwbw | 77 | 5.9% |
| zo08pcjuvlwhdw | 77 | 5.9% |
| fqtnu0hgc1ek0q | 76 | 5.8% |
| hqflxmh/7pednw | 76 | 5.8% |
| o7anfex3qjgxa | 76 | 5.8% |
| Other values (8) | 513 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| w | 1026 | 5.6% |
| g | 826 | 4.5% |
| A | 740 | 4.0% |
| Q | 662 | 3.6% |
| 9 | 625 | 3.4% |
| E | 587 | 3.2% |
| F | 569 | 3.1% |
| n | 525 | 2.9% |
| O | 471 | 2.6% |
| 7 | 466 | 2.5% |
| Other values (53) | 11815 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 18312 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| w | 1026 | 5.6% |
| g | 826 | 4.5% |
| A | 740 | 4.0% |
| Q | 662 | 3.6% |
| 9 | 625 | 3.4% |
| E | 587 | 3.2% |
| F | 569 | 3.1% |
| n | 525 | 2.9% |
| O | 471 | 2.6% |
| 7 | 466 | 2.5% |
| Other values (53) | 11815 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 18312 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| w | 1026 | 5.6% |
| g | 826 | 4.5% |
| A | 740 | 4.0% |
| Q | 662 | 3.6% |
| 9 | 625 | 3.4% |
| E | 587 | 3.2% |
| F | 569 | 3.1% |
| n | 525 | 2.9% |
| O | 471 | 2.6% |
| 7 | 466 | 2.5% |
| Other values (53) | 11815 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 18312 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| w | 1026 | 5.6% |
| g | 826 | 4.5% |
| A | 740 | 4.0% |
| Q | 662 | 3.6% |
| 9 | 625 | 3.4% |
| E | 587 | 3.2% |
| F | 569 | 3.1% |
| n | 525 | 2.9% |
| O | 471 | 2.6% |
| 7 | 466 | 2.5% |
| Other values (53) | 11815 |
_dlt_list_idx
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION ZEROS
| Distinct | 100 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 7.6% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 49.254587 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 99 |
| Zeros | 14 |
| Zeros (%) | 1.1% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 4.35 |
| Q1 | 24 |
| median | 49 |
| Q3 | 74 |
| 95-th percentile | 94 |
| Maximum | 99 |
| Range | 99 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 50 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 28.852529 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.58578359 |
| Kurtosis | -1.1927601 |
| Mean | 49.254587 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 25 |
| Skewness | 0.010865008 |
| Sum | 64425 |
| Variance | 832.46842 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 73 | 17 | 1.3% |
| 16 | 17 | 1.3% |
| 82 | 17 | 1.3% |
| 38 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 6 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 20 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 52 | 16 | 1.2% |
| 22 | 15 | 1.1% |
| 64 | 15 | 1.1% |
| 31 | 15 | 1.1% |
| Other values (90) | 1148 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 14 | |
| 1 | 13 | |
| 2 | 15 | |
| 3 | 11 | |
| 4 | 13 | |
| 5 | 15 | |
| 6 | 16 | |
| 7 | 12 | |
| 8 | 12 | |
| 9 | 13 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 99 | 15 | |
| 98 | 10 | |
| 97 | 11 | |
| 96 | 13 | |
| 95 | 14 | |
| 94 | 15 | |
| 93 | 13 | |
| 92 | 14 | |
| 91 | 13 | |
| 90 | 12 |
_dlt_id
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 90.8 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 14 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 14 |
| Mean length | 14 |
| Min length | 14 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 18312 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 64 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1308 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | xfed9AXti2/CBQ |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 5YBTXlV02suc8A |
| 3rd row | UqbgYVdxfPey4Q |
| 4th row | brzq1LPz+vmTDg |
| 5th row | yy1Te+AdLcNGpQ |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| xfed9axti2/cbq | 1 | 0.1% |
| ig+vl8485uw98g | 1 | 0.1% |
| brzq1lpz+vmtdg | 1 | 0.1% |
| yy1te+adlcngpq | 1 | 0.1% |
| p6wyhq9mnb9ezw | 1 | 0.1% |
| o8eebww8ljmrjw | 1 | 0.1% |
| zs6hn1h169kqwg | 1 | 0.1% |
| znowlscd7gsqew | 1 | 0.1% |
| yuggxsrdoniula | 1 | 0.1% |
| 8/sbwkj08rkp5q | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (1298) | 1298 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Q | 598 | 3.3% |
| g | 597 | 3.3% |
| A | 585 | 3.2% |
| w | 570 | 3.1% |
| M | 291 | 1.6% |
| E | 290 | 1.6% |
| H | 289 | 1.6% |
| a | 289 | 1.6% |
| C | 289 | 1.6% |
| o | 287 | 1.6% |
| Other values (54) | 14227 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 18312 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Q | 598 | 3.3% |
| g | 597 | 3.3% |
| A | 585 | 3.2% |
| w | 570 | 3.1% |
| M | 291 | 1.6% |
| E | 290 | 1.6% |
| H | 289 | 1.6% |
| a | 289 | 1.6% |
| C | 289 | 1.6% |
| o | 287 | 1.6% |
| Other values (54) | 14227 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 18312 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Q | 598 | 3.3% |
| g | 597 | 3.3% |
| A | 585 | 3.2% |
| w | 570 | 3.1% |
| M | 291 | 1.6% |
| E | 290 | 1.6% |
| H | 289 | 1.6% |
| a | 289 | 1.6% |
| C | 289 | 1.6% |
| o | 287 | 1.6% |
| Other values (54) | 14227 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 18312 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Q | 598 | 3.3% |
| g | 597 | 3.3% |
| A | 585 | 3.2% |
| w | 570 | 3.1% |
| M | 291 | 1.6% |
| E | 290 | 1.6% |
| H | 289 | 1.6% |
| a | 289 | 1.6% |
| C | 289 | 1.6% |
| o | 287 | 1.6% |
| Other values (54) | 14227 |
closed_date
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 238 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 1070 |
| Missing (%) | 81.8% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1.405423 × 109 |
| Minimum | 1.3248783 × 109 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 1.5918857 × 109 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 1.3248783 × 109 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 1.3558337 × 109 |
| Q1 | 1.3839577 × 109 |
| median | 1.4068699 × 109 |
| Q3 | 1.4213466 × 109 |
| 95-th percentile | 1.4523565 × 109 |
| Maximum | 1.5918857 × 109 |
| Range | 2.670074 × 108 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 37388880 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 32058387 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.02281049 |
| Kurtosis | 3.7333045 |
| Mean | 1.405423 × 109 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 16151034 |
| Skewness | 0.73433882 |
| Sum | 3.3449067 × 1011 |
| Variance | 1.0277402 × 1015 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1410379103 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1407696985 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1406738375 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1407454288 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1407697042 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1407784693 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1408178962 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1408286323 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1452356420 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1413042481 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (228) | 228 | 17.4% |
| (Missing) | 1070 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1324878327 | 1 | |
| 1338580910 | 1 | |
| 1348195005 | 1 | |
| 1352164840 | 1 | |
| 1352660770 | 1 | |
| 1352998417 | 1 | |
| 1354127311 | 1 | |
| 1354127709 | 1 | |
| 1354241821 | 1 | |
| 1354242145 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1591885730 | 1 | |
| 1470625454 | 1 | |
| 1455227511 | 1 | |
| 1455227478 | 1 | |
| 1455227146 | 1 | |
| 1453853633 | 1 | |
| 1453651203 | 1 | |
| 1453240452 | 1 | |
| 1452540191 | 1 | |
| 1452357078 | 1 |
closed_reason
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 10 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 4.2% |
| Missing | 1070 |
| Missing (%) | 81.8% |
| Memory size | 76.4 KiB |
| Needs details or clarity | |
|---|---|
| Not suitable for this site | |
| Opinion-based | |
| Needs more focus | |
| not constructive | |
| Other values (5) |
Length
| Max length | 26 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 24 |
| Mean length | 19.521008 |
| Min length | 9 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 4646 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 27 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.4% |
Sample
| 1st row | not constructive |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Not suitable for this site |
| 3rd row | not a real question |
| 4th row | not constructive |
| 5th row | not constructive |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Needs details or clarity | 77 | 5.9% |
| Not suitable for this site | 46 | 3.5% |
| Opinion-based | 32 | 2.4% |
| Needs more focus | 26 | 2.0% |
| not constructive | 21 | 1.6% |
| Duplicate | 13 | 1.0% |
| off topic | 9 | 0.7% |
| not a real question | 7 | 0.5% |
| exact duplicate | 6 | 0.5% |
| too localized | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1070 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| needs | 103 | |
| details | 77 | |
| or | 77 | |
| clarity | 77 | |
| not | 74 | |
| suitable | 46 | 6.0% |
| for | 46 | 6.0% |
| this | 46 | 6.0% |
| site | 46 | 6.0% |
| opinion-based | 32 | 4.2% |
| Other values (12) | 139 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 525 | ||
| e | 494 | |
| t | 450 | |
| i | 413 | 8.9% |
| s | 404 | 8.7% |
| o | 330 | 7.1% |
| a | 272 | 5.9% |
| r | 254 | 5.5% |
| l | 228 | 4.9% |
| d | 219 | 4.7% |
| Other values (17) | 1057 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 4646 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 525 | ||
| e | 494 | |
| t | 450 | |
| i | 413 | 8.9% |
| s | 404 | 8.7% |
| o | 330 | 7.1% |
| a | 272 | 5.9% |
| r | 254 | 5.5% |
| l | 228 | 4.9% |
| d | 219 | 4.7% |
| Other values (17) | 1057 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 4646 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 525 | ||
| e | 494 | |
| t | 450 | |
| i | 413 | 8.9% |
| s | 404 | 8.7% |
| o | 330 | 7.1% |
| a | 272 | 5.9% |
| r | 254 | 5.5% |
| l | 228 | 4.9% |
| d | 219 | 4.7% |
| Other values (17) | 1057 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 4646 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 525 | ||
| e | 494 | |
| t | 450 | |
| i | 413 | 8.9% |
| s | 404 | 8.7% |
| o | 330 | 7.1% |
| a | 272 | 5.9% |
| r | 254 | 5.5% |
| l | 228 | 4.9% |
| d | 219 | 4.7% |
| Other values (17) | 1057 |
owner__accept_rate
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING ZEROS
| Distinct | 44 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 8.1% |
| Missing | 762 |
| Missing (%) | 58.3% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 47.824176 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 100 |
| Zeros | 44 |
| Zeros (%) | 3.4% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 0 |
| Q1 | 42 |
| median | 44 |
| Q3 | 62 |
| 95-th percentile | 86 |
| Maximum | 100 |
| Range | 100 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 20 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 24.246559 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.50699377 |
| Kurtosis | -0.062855839 |
| Mean | 47.824176 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 13 |
| Skewness | -0.01331451 |
| Sum | 26112 |
| Variance | 587.89563 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=44)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 44 | 169 | 12.9% |
| 0 | 44 | 3.4% |
| 50 | 27 | 2.1% |
| 25 | 23 | 1.8% |
| 100 | 20 | 1.5% |
| 82 | 19 | 1.5% |
| 60 | 19 | 1.5% |
| 83 | 18 | 1.4% |
| 42 | 14 | 1.1% |
| 73 | 13 | 1.0% |
| Other values (34) | 180 | 13.8% |
| (Missing) | 762 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 44 | |
| 5 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 6 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 11 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 12 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 17 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 20 | 9 | 0.7% |
| 25 | 23 | |
| 27 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 29 | 7 | 0.5% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 100 | 20 | |
| 94 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 86 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 83 | 18 | |
| 82 | 19 | |
| 80 | 6 | 0.5% |
| 78 | 5 | 0.4% |
| 75 | 8 | 0.6% |
| 73 | 13 | |
| 70 | 7 | 0.5% |
accepted_answer_id
Real number (ℝ)
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 594 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 714 |
| Missing (%) | 54.6% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 11036.379 |
| Minimum | 265 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 21946 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 265 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 2905.7 |
| Q1 | 6851.25 |
| median | 9778 |
| Q3 | 15476.25 |
| 95-th percentile | 21227.45 |
| Maximum | 21946 |
| Range | 21681 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 8625 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 5558.0671 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.5036133 |
| Kurtosis | -0.90744253 |
| Mean | 11036.379 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 4228.5 |
| Skewness | 0.29993039 |
| Sum | 6555609 |
| Variance | 30892110 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 12947 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14025 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14036 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14053 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14057 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14106 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14656 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14121 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14135 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 14142 | 1 | 0.1% |
| Other values (584) | 584 | |
| (Missing) | 714 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 265 | 1 | |
| 377 | 1 | |
| 477 | 1 | |
| 742 | 1 | |
| 751 | 1 | |
| 846 | 1 | |
| 847 | 1 | |
| 1058 | 1 | |
| 1145 | 1 | |
| 1368 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 21946 | 1 | |
| 21905 | 1 | |
| 21900 | 1 | |
| 21810 | 1 | |
| 21809 | 1 | |
| 21751 | 1 | |
| 21740 | 1 | |
| 21738 | 1 | |
| 21726 | 1 | |
| 21693 | 1 |
locked_date
Unsupported
MISSING REJECTED UNSUPPORTED
| Missing | 1308 |
|---|---|
| Missing (%) | 100.0% |
| Memory size | 10.3 KiB |
protected_date
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING UNIFORM
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 1304 |
| Missing (%) | 99.7% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 1393692167.0 | |
|---|---|
| 1407436371.0 | |
| 1409987906.0 | |
| 1418941309.0 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 48 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 10 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 4 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1393692167.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 1407436371.0 |
| 3rd row | 1409987906.0 |
| 4th row | 1418941309.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1393692167.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1407436371.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1409987906.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1418941309.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1304 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1393692167.0 | 1 | |
| 1407436371.0 | 1 | |
| 1409987906.0 | 1 | |
| 1418941309.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 4 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| . | 4 | |
| 8 | 2 | 4.2% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.1% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 48 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 4 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| . | 4 | |
| 8 | 2 | 4.2% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.1% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 48 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 4 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| . | 4 | |
| 8 | 2 | 4.2% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.1% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 48 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 4 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| . | 4 | |
| 8 | 2 | 4.2% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.1% |
| Distinct | 3 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 60.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 7 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 7 |
| Mean length | 5.8 |
| Min length | 4 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 29 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 8 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 20.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | #FFF |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | #F4ECE3 |
| 3rd row | #EBF5F5 |
| 4th row | #FFF |
| 5th row | #EBF5F5 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| fff | 2 | |
| ebf5f5 | 2 | |
| f4ece3 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| F | 11 | |
| # | 5 | |
| E | 4 | 13.8% |
| 5 | 4 | 13.8% |
| B | 2 | 6.9% |
| 4 | 1 | 3.4% |
| C | 1 | 3.4% |
| 3 | 1 | 3.4% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 29 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| F | 11 | |
| # | 5 | |
| E | 4 | 13.8% |
| 5 | 4 | 13.8% |
| B | 2 | 6.9% |
| 4 | 1 | 3.4% |
| C | 1 | 3.4% |
| 3 | 1 | 3.4% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 29 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| F | 11 | |
| # | 5 | |
| E | 4 | 13.8% |
| 5 | 4 | 13.8% |
| B | 2 | 6.9% |
| 4 | 1 | 3.4% |
| C | 1 | 3.4% |
| 3 | 1 | 3.4% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 29 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| F | 11 | |
| # | 5 | |
| E | 4 | 13.8% |
| 5 | 4 | 13.8% |
| B | 2 | 6.9% |
| 4 | 1 | 3.4% |
| C | 1 | 3.4% |
| 3 | 1 | 3.4% |
| Distinct | 3 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 60.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 7 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 7 |
| Mean length | 5.8 |
| Min length | 4 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 29 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 7 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 20.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | #000 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | #5E5E5E |
| 3rd row | #5A8788 |
| 4th row | #000 |
| 5th row | #5A8788 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 000 | 2 | |
| 5a8788 | 2 | |
| 5e5e5e | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 6 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| # | 5 | |
| 5 | 5 | |
| E | 3 | |
| A | 2 | 6.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 6.9% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 29 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 6 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| # | 5 | |
| 5 | 5 | |
| E | 3 | |
| A | 2 | 6.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 6.9% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 29 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 6 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| # | 5 | |
| 5 | 5 | |
| E | 3 | |
| A | 2 | 6.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 6.9% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 29 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 6 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| # | 5 | |
| 5 | 5 | |
| E | 3 | |
| A | 2 | 6.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 6.9% |
migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color
Categorical
CONSTANT MISSING
| Distinct | 1 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 20.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| #0077CC |
|---|
Length
| Max length | 7 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 7 |
| Mean length | 7 |
| Min length | 7 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 35 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 4 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | #0077CC |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | #0077CC |
| 3rd row | #0077CC |
| 4th row | #0077CC |
| 5th row | #0077CC |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| #0077CC | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0077cc | 5 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 10 | |
| 7 | 10 | |
| C | 10 | |
| # | 5 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 35 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 10 | |
| 7 | 10 | |
| C | 10 | |
| # | 5 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 35 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 10 | |
| 7 | 10 | |
| C | 10 | |
| # | 5 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 35 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 10 | |
| 7 | 10 | |
| C | 10 | |
| # | 5 |
migrated_from__other_site__launch_date
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 1298586551.0 | |
|---|---|
| 1639665691.0 | |
| 1290463924.0 | |
| 1332366021.0 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 60 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 10 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 60.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1639665691.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 1290463924.0 |
| 3rd row | 1298586551.0 |
| 4th row | 1332366021.0 |
| 5th row | 1298586551.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1298586551.0 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 1639665691.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1290463924.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1332366021.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1298586551.0 | 2 | |
| 1639665691.0 | 1 | |
| 1290463924.0 | 1 | |
| 1332366021.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 9 | |
| 6 | 9 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 2 | 6 | |
| 9 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 8 | 4 | |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 9 | |
| 6 | 9 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 2 | 6 | |
| 9 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 8 | 4 | |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 9 | |
| 6 | 9 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 2 | 6 | |
| 9 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 8 | 4 | |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 9 | |
| 6 | 9 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 2 | 6 | |
| 9 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 8 | 4 | |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 1289329200.0 | |
|---|---|
| 1417457805.0 | |
| 1281639600.0 | |
| 1299178800.0 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 60 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 60.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1417457805.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 1281639600.0 |
| 3rd row | 1289329200.0 |
| 4th row | 1299178800.0 |
| 5th row | 1289329200.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1289329200.0 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 1417457805.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1281639600.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1299178800.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1289329200.0 | 2 | |
| 1417457805.0 | 1 | |
| 1281639600.0 | 1 | |
| 1299178800.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 14 | |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 2 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
| 5 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 14 | |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 2 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
| 5 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 14 | |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 2 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
| 5 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 14 | |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 2 | 8 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 8 | 6 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 4 | 2 | 3.3% |
| 5 | 2 | 3.3% |
migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 1288724400.0 | |
|---|---|
| 1416337200.0 | |
| 1281034800.0 | |
| 1298574000.0 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 60 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 60.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1416337200.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 1281034800.0 |
| 3rd row | 1288724400.0 |
| 4th row | 1298574000.0 |
| 5th row | 1288724400.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1288724400.0 | 2 | 0.2% |
| 1416337200.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1281034800.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1298574000.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1288724400.0 | 2 | |
| 1416337200.0 | 1 | |
| 1281034800.0 | 1 | |
| 1298574000.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 17 | |
| 1 | 7 | |
| 2 | 7 | |
| 8 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 7 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 6 | 1 | 1.7% |
| 9 | 1 | 1.7% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 17 | |
| 1 | 7 | |
| 2 | 7 | |
| 8 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 7 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 6 | 1 | 1.7% |
| 9 | 1 | 1.7% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 17 | |
| 1 | 7 | |
| 2 | 7 | |
| 8 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 7 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 6 | 1 | 1.7% |
| 9 | 1 | 1.7% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 17 | |
| 1 | 7 | |
| 2 | 7 | |
| 8 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | 8.3% |
| 7 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 3 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 6 | 1 | 1.7% |
| 9 | 1 | 1.7% |
migrated_from__other_site__site_state
Categorical
CONSTANT MISSING
| Distinct | 1 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 20.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| normal |
|---|
Length
| Max length | 6 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 6 |
| Mean length | 6 |
| Min length | 6 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 30 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 6 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | normal |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | normal |
| 3rd row | normal |
| 4th row | normal |
| 5th row | normal |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| normal | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| normal | 5 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| n | 5 | |
| o | 5 | |
| r | 5 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| l | 5 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 30 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| n | 5 | |
| o | 5 | |
| r | 5 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| l | 5 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 30 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| n | 5 | |
| o | 5 | |
| r | 5 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| l | 5 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 30 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| n | 5 | |
| o | 5 | |
| r | 5 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| l | 5 |
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.4 KiB |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 2 |
|---|---|
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 |
| (Missing) |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 2 | 0.2% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| cdn.sstatic.net | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 2 | 0.2% |
| /Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url
URL
MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.4 KiB |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/favicon.ico | 2 |
|---|---|
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/favicon.ico | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/favicon.ico | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/favicon.ico | 1 |
| (Missing) |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/favicon.ico | 2 | 0.2% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/favicon.ico | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/favicon.ico | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/favicon.ico | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| cdn.sstatic.net | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /Sites/physics/Img/favicon.ico | 2 | 0.2% |
| /Sites/economics/Img/favicon.ico | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/english/Img/favicon.ico | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/skeptics/Img/favicon.ico | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
migrated_from__other_site__icon_url
URL
MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.4 KiB |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 2 |
|---|---|
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 |
| (Missing) |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 2 | 0.2% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| cdn.sstatic.net | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 2 | 0.2% |
| /Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
migrated_from__other_site__audience
Text
MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.4 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 69 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 65 |
| Mean length | 52.2 |
| Min length | 21 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 261 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 24 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 60.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | those who study, teach, research and apply economics and econometrics |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts |
| 3rd row | active researchers, academics and students of physics |
| 4th row | scientific skepticism |
| 5th row | active researchers, academics and students of physics |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| and | 5 | 15.2% |
| active | 2 | 6.1% |
| academics | 2 | 6.1% |
| students | 2 | 6.1% |
| of | 2 | 6.1% |
| physics | 2 | 6.1% |
| researchers | 2 | 6.1% |
| linguists | 1 | 3.0% |
| scientific | 1 | 3.0% |
| enthusiasts | 1 | 3.0% |
| Other values (13) | 13 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 32 | |
| 28 | ||
| e | 25 | 9.6% |
| a | 19 | 7.3% |
| i | 19 | 7.3% |
| c | 19 | 7.3% |
| t | 17 | 6.5% |
| n | 14 | 5.4% |
| o | 11 | 4.2% |
| r | 10 | 3.8% |
| Other values (14) | 67 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 261 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 32 | |
| 28 | ||
| e | 25 | 9.6% |
| a | 19 | 7.3% |
| i | 19 | 7.3% |
| c | 19 | 7.3% |
| t | 17 | 6.5% |
| n | 14 | 5.4% |
| o | 11 | 4.2% |
| r | 10 | 3.8% |
| Other values (14) | 67 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 261 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 32 | |
| 28 | ||
| e | 25 | 9.6% |
| a | 19 | 7.3% |
| i | 19 | 7.3% |
| c | 19 | 7.3% |
| t | 17 | 6.5% |
| n | 14 | 5.4% |
| o | 11 | 4.2% |
| r | 10 | 3.8% |
| Other values (14) | 67 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 261 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 32 | |
| 28 | ||
| e | 25 | 9.6% |
| a | 19 | 7.3% |
| i | 19 | 7.3% |
| c | 19 | 7.3% |
| t | 17 | 6.5% |
| n | 14 | 5.4% |
| o | 11 | 4.2% |
| r | 10 | 3.8% |
| Other values (14) | 67 |
migrated_from__other_site__site_url
URL
MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.3 KiB |
| https://physics.stackexchange.com | 2 |
|---|---|
| https://economics.stackexchange.com | 1 |
| https://english.stackexchange.com | 1 |
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com | 1 |
| (Missing) |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://physics.stackexchange.com | 2 | 0.2% |
| https://economics.stackexchange.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://english.stackexchange.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| physics.stackexchange.com | 2 | 0.2% |
| economics.stackexchange.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| english.stackexchange.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| skeptics.stackexchange.com | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 9 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 7 |
| Mean length | 7.6 |
| Min length | 7 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 38 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 14 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 60.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | economics |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | english |
| 3rd row | physics |
| 4th row | skeptics |
| 5th row | physics |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| physics | 2 | |
| economics | 1 | |
| english | 1 | |
| skeptics | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | |
| c | 5 | |
| p | 3 | 7.9% |
| h | 3 | 7.9% |
| e | 3 | 7.9% |
| y | 2 | 5.3% |
| o | 2 | 5.3% |
| n | 2 | 5.3% |
| m | 1 | 2.6% |
| Other values (4) | 4 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 38 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | |
| c | 5 | |
| p | 3 | 7.9% |
| h | 3 | 7.9% |
| e | 3 | 7.9% |
| y | 2 | 5.3% |
| o | 2 | 5.3% |
| n | 2 | 5.3% |
| m | 1 | 2.6% |
| Other values (4) | 4 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 38 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | |
| c | 5 | |
| p | 3 | 7.9% |
| h | 3 | 7.9% |
| e | 3 | 7.9% |
| y | 2 | 5.3% |
| o | 2 | 5.3% |
| n | 2 | 5.3% |
| m | 1 | 2.6% |
| Other values (4) | 4 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 38 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | |
| c | 5 | |
| p | 3 | 7.9% |
| h | 3 | 7.9% |
| e | 3 | 7.9% |
| y | 2 | 5.3% |
| o | 2 | 5.3% |
| n | 2 | 5.3% |
| m | 1 | 2.6% |
| Other values (4) | 4 |
migrated_from__other_site__logo_url
URL
MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.4 KiB |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/logo.png | 2 |
|---|---|
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/logo.png | 1 |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/logo.png | 1 |
| (Missing) |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/logo.png | 2 | 0.2% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/logo.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/logo.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| cdn.sstatic.net | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| /Sites/physics/Img/logo.png | 2 | 0.2% |
| /Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/english/Img/logo.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| /Sites/skeptics/Img/logo.png | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5 | 0.4% | |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
migrated_from__other_site__name
Text
MISSING
| Distinct | 4 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 80.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 41.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 28 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 9 |
| Mean length | 11.8 |
| Min length | 7 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 59 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 24 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 60.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | Economics |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | English Language & Usage |
| 3rd row | Physics |
| 4th row | Skeptics |
| 5th row | Physics |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| physics | 2 | |
| economics | 1 | |
| english | 1 | |
| language | 1 | |
| amp | 1 | |
| usage | 1 | |
| skeptics | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | 8.5% |
| c | 5 | 8.5% |
| g | 4 | 6.8% |
| a | 4 | 6.8% |
| 3 | 5.1% | |
| e | 3 | 5.1% |
| n | 3 | 5.1% |
| h | 3 | 5.1% |
| p | 2 | 3.4% |
| Other values (14) | 19 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 59 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | 8.5% |
| c | 5 | 8.5% |
| g | 4 | 6.8% |
| a | 4 | 6.8% |
| 3 | 5.1% | |
| e | 3 | 5.1% |
| n | 3 | 5.1% |
| h | 3 | 5.1% |
| p | 2 | 3.4% |
| Other values (14) | 19 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 59 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | 8.5% |
| c | 5 | 8.5% |
| g | 4 | 6.8% |
| a | 4 | 6.8% |
| 3 | 5.1% | |
| e | 3 | 5.1% |
| n | 3 | 5.1% |
| h | 3 | 5.1% |
| p | 2 | 3.4% |
| Other values (14) | 19 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 59 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8 | |
| i | 5 | 8.5% |
| c | 5 | 8.5% |
| g | 4 | 6.8% |
| a | 4 | 6.8% |
| 3 | 5.1% | |
| e | 3 | 5.1% |
| n | 3 | 5.1% |
| h | 3 | 5.1% |
| p | 2 | 3.4% |
| Other values (14) | 19 |
migrated_from__other_site__site_type
Categorical
CONSTANT MISSING
| Distinct | 1 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 20.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| main_site |
|---|
Length
| Max length | 9 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 9 |
| Mean length | 9 |
| Min length | 9 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 45 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 8 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | main_site |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | main_site |
| 3rd row | main_site |
| 4th row | main_site |
| 5th row | main_site |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| main_site | 5 | 0.4% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| main_site | 5 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 10 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| n | 5 | |
| _ | 5 | |
| s | 5 | |
| t | 5 | |
| e | 5 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 45 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 10 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| n | 5 | |
| _ | 5 | |
| s | 5 | |
| t | 5 | |
| e | 5 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 45 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 10 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| n | 5 | |
| _ | 5 | |
| s | 5 | |
| t | 5 | |
| e | 5 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 45 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 10 | |
| m | 5 | |
| a | 5 | |
| n | 5 | |
| _ | 5 | |
| s | 5 | |
| t | 5 | |
| e | 5 |
migrated_from__on_date
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING UNIFORM
| Distinct | 5 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 1335515371.0 | |
|---|---|
| 1355874348.0 | |
| 1360861384.0 | |
| 1376102586.0 | |
| 1412454949.0 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 60 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 5 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1335515371.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 1355874348.0 |
| 3rd row | 1360861384.0 |
| 4th row | 1376102586.0 |
| 5th row | 1412454949.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1335515371.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1355874348.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1360861384.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1376102586.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1412454949.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1335515371.0 | 1 | |
| 1355874348.0 | 1 | |
| 1360861384.0 | 1 | |
| 1376102586.0 | 1 | |
| 1412454949.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 10 | |
| 3 | 8 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 8 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 2 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 10 | |
| 3 | 8 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 8 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 2 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 10 | |
| 3 | 8 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 8 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 2 | 2 | 3.3% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 60 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 10 | |
| 3 | 8 | |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 0 | 7 | |
| 4 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 8 | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | 6.7% |
| 7 | 3 | 5.0% |
| 2 | 2 | 3.3% |
migrated_from__question_id
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING UNIFORM
| Distinct | 5 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 1303 |
| Missing (%) | 99.6% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 416.0 | |
|---|---|
| 94660.0 | |
| 53920.0 | |
| 17289.0 | |
| 138746.0 |
Length
| Max length | 8 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 7 |
| Mean length | 6.8 |
| Min length | 5 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 34 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 5 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 416.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 94660.0 |
| 3rd row | 53920.0 |
| 4th row | 17289.0 |
| 5th row | 138746.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 416.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 94660.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 53920.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 17289.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 138746.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1303 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 416.0 | 1 | |
| 94660.0 | 1 | |
| 53920.0 | 1 | |
| 17289.0 | 1 | |
| 138746.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| 1 | 3 | |
| 9 | 3 | |
| 3 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 2 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 8 | 2 | 5.9% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 34 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| 1 | 3 | |
| 9 | 3 | |
| 3 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 2 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 8 | 2 | 5.9% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 34 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| 1 | 3 | |
| 9 | 3 | |
| 3 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 2 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 8 | 2 | 5.9% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 34 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 7 | |
| . | 5 | |
| 6 | 4 | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| 1 | 3 | |
| 9 | 3 | |
| 3 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 2 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 7 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 8 | 2 | 5.9% |
community_owned_date
Categorical
HIGH CORRELATION MISSING UNIFORM
| Distinct | 3 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 1305 |
| Missing (%) | 99.8% |
| Memory size | 71.7 KiB |
| 1370027048.0 | |
|---|---|
| 1374355406.0 | |
| 1374356051.0 |
Length
| Max length | 12 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 12 |
| Mean length | 12 |
| Min length | 12 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 36 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 10 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 3 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1370027048.0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 1374355406.0 |
| 3rd row | 1374356051.0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1370027048.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1374355406.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1374356051.0 | 1 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 1305 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1370027048.0 | 1 | |
| 1374355406.0 | 1 | |
| 1374356051.0 | 1 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 1 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| 4 | 4 | |
| 5 | 4 | |
| . | 3 | 8.3% |
| 6 | 2 | 5.6% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.8% |
| 8 | 1 | 2.8% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 36 |
Most frequent character per category
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 1 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| 4 | 4 | |
| 5 | 4 | |
| . | 3 | 8.3% |
| 6 | 2 | 5.6% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.8% |
| 8 | 1 | 2.8% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 36 |
Most frequent character per script
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 1 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| 4 | 4 | |
| 5 | 4 | |
| . | 3 | 8.3% |
| 6 | 2 | 5.6% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.8% |
| 8 | 1 | 2.8% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| (unknown) | 36 |
Most frequent character per block
(unknown)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 8 | |
| 3 | 5 | |
| 1 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| 4 | 4 | |
| 5 | 4 | |
| . | 3 | 8.3% |
| 6 | 2 | 5.6% |
| 2 | 1 | 2.8% |
| 8 | 1 | 2.8% |
gpt35_answer
Unsupported
REJECTED UNSUPPORTED
| Missing | 0 |
|---|---|
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 470.2 KiB |
| _dlt_list_idx | _dlt_parent_id | accepted_answer_id | answer_count | closed_date | closed_reason | community_owned_date | content_license | last_activity_date | last_edit_date | migrated_from__on_date | migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date | migrated_from__other_site__launch_date | migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date | migrated_from__question_id | owner__accept_rate | owner__account_id | owner__reputation | owner__user_id | owner__user_type | protected_date | question_creation_date | question_id | question_score | view_count | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| _dlt_list_idx | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.073 | -0.054 | 0.007 | 0.020 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.043 | -0.009 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | -0.004 | -0.001 | 0.023 | 0.014 | 0.046 | 1.000 | 0.043 | 0.043 | -0.041 | -0.045 |
| _dlt_parent_id | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.724 | 0.053 | 0.495 | 0.290 | 1.000 | 0.051 | 0.858 | 0.535 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.170 | 0.261 | 0.071 | 0.462 | 0.112 | 1.000 | 0.585 | 0.682 | 0.066 | 0.047 |
| accepted_answer_id | 0.073 | 0.724 | 1.000 | -0.045 | 0.468 | 0.270 | NaN | 0.092 | 0.840 | 0.794 | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | 0.256 | 0.426 | -0.150 | 0.682 | 0.137 | NaN | 0.995 | 0.995 | -0.286 | -0.168 |
| answer_count | -0.054 | 0.053 | -0.045 | 1.000 | 0.185 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.101 | -0.060 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.016 | -0.009 | -0.057 | 0.011 | 0.048 | 1.000 | -0.027 | -0.027 | 0.180 | 0.314 |
| closed_date | 0.007 | 0.495 | 0.468 | 0.185 | 1.000 | 0.363 | NaN | 0.000 | 0.672 | 0.490 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.202 | 0.287 | -0.011 | 0.452 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.611 | 0.611 | -0.046 | -0.096 |
| closed_reason | 0.020 | 0.290 | 0.270 | 0.000 | 0.363 | 1.000 | NaN | 0.000 | 0.280 | 0.296 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.277 | 0.130 | 0.000 | 0.171 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.269 | 0.249 | 0.097 | 0.133 |
| community_owned_date | 1.000 | 1.000 | NaN | 1.000 | NaN | NaN | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| content_license | 0.000 | 0.051 | 0.092 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.996 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| last_activity_date | 0.043 | 0.858 | 0.840 | 0.101 | 0.672 | 0.280 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.672 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.115 | 0.350 | -0.121 | 0.562 | 0.078 | 1.000 | 0.849 | 0.849 | -0.101 | -0.066 |
| last_edit_date | -0.009 | 0.535 | 0.794 | -0.060 | 0.490 | 0.296 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 0.672 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.041 | 0.399 | -0.091 | 0.535 | 0.140 | 1.000 | 0.772 | 0.772 | -0.207 | -0.207 |
| migrated_from__on_date | 1.000 | 1.000 | NaN | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date | 1.000 | 0.000 | NaN | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| migrated_from__other_site__launch_date | 1.000 | 0.000 | NaN | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date | 1.000 | 0.000 | NaN | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| migrated_from__question_id | 1.000 | 1.000 | NaN | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| owner__accept_rate | -0.004 | 0.170 | 0.256 | 0.016 | 0.202 | 0.277 | 1.000 | 0.039 | 0.115 | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | -0.122 | -0.015 | 0.037 | 0.401 | 0.000 | 0.094 | 0.094 | -0.081 | -0.030 |
| owner__account_id | -0.001 | 0.261 | 0.426 | -0.009 | 0.287 | 0.130 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.350 | 0.399 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | -0.122 | 1.000 | -0.410 | 0.703 | 0.288 | 1.000 | 0.478 | 0.478 | -0.172 | -0.085 |
| owner__reputation | 0.023 | 0.071 | -0.150 | -0.057 | -0.011 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.061 | -0.121 | -0.091 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | -0.015 | -0.410 | 1.000 | -0.581 | 0.582 | 1.000 | -0.168 | -0.168 | 0.229 | 0.014 |
| owner__user_id | 0.014 | 0.462 | 0.682 | 0.011 | 0.452 | 0.171 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.562 | 0.535 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.037 | 0.703 | -0.581 | 1.000 | 0.197 | 1.000 | 0.685 | 0.685 | -0.201 | -0.106 |
| owner__user_type | 0.046 | 0.112 | 0.137 | 0.048 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.078 | 0.140 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.401 | 0.288 | 0.582 | 0.197 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.099 | 0.109 | 0.171 | 0.000 |
| protected_date | 1.000 | 1.000 | NaN | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| question_creation_date | 0.043 | 0.585 | 0.995 | -0.027 | 0.611 | 0.269 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.849 | 0.772 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.094 | 0.478 | -0.168 | 0.685 | 0.099 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | -0.251 | -0.180 |
| question_id | 0.043 | 0.682 | 0.995 | -0.027 | 0.611 | 0.249 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.849 | 0.772 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.094 | 0.478 | -0.168 | 0.685 | 0.109 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | -0.251 | -0.180 |
| question_score | -0.041 | 0.066 | -0.286 | 0.180 | -0.046 | 0.097 | 1.000 | 0.000 | -0.101 | -0.207 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | -0.081 | -0.172 | 0.229 | -0.201 | 0.171 | 1.000 | -0.251 | -0.251 | 1.000 | 0.330 |
| view_count | -0.045 | 0.047 | -0.168 | 0.314 | -0.096 | 0.133 | 1.000 | 0.000 | -0.066 | -0.207 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | -0.030 | -0.085 | 0.014 | -0.106 | 0.000 | 1.000 | -0.180 | -0.180 | 0.330 | 1.000 |
A simple visualization of nullity by column.
Nullity matrix is a data-dense display which lets you quickly visually pick out patterns in data completion.
| question_id | is_accepted | answer_score | answer_creation_date | answer | owner__account_id | owner__reputation | owner__user_id | owner__user_type | owner__profile_image | owner__display_name | owner__link | is_answered | view_count | answer_count | question_score | last_activity_date | question_creation_date | last_edit_date | content_license | link | title | question | _dlt_parent_id | _dlt_list_idx | _dlt_id | closed_date | closed_reason | owner__accept_rate | accepted_answer_id | locked_date | protected_date | migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color | migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color | migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color | migrated_from__other_site__launch_date | migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date | migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date | migrated_from__other_site__site_state | migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url | migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url | migrated_from__other_site__icon_url | migrated_from__other_site__audience | migrated_from__other_site__site_url | migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter | migrated_from__other_site__logo_url | migrated_from__other_site__name | migrated_from__other_site__site_type | migrated_from__on_date | migrated_from__question_id | community_owned_date | gpt35_answer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 138 | [[False, False, True, False, False, False]] | [[-1, 4, 6, 4, 1, 3]] | [[1369382427, 1333109853, 1319736619, 1319696555, 1319584440, 1307574570]] | [[<p>If you wish to live an examined life and you interact with others who do not, you must of necessity examine their unexamined lives - neglecting to do so represents a deficiency in your own examinations of your life.</p>\n, <p>The somewhat easier target, a little to the deontological left of your question ("why should"-> "why would"), sheds a little light on things. For almost all philosophers believe in something akin to the so called 'golden rule of ethics' (the form most germane here being: "All moral acts remain moral if committed by everyone"), and almost all that practise philosophy do so for some ethical consideration. The syllogism that ends, therefore, in almost all philosophers prescribing philosophy on ethical grounds is a moment's work to complete.</p>\n\n<p>But now, how to skirt the guillotine and leap from is to ought? Perhaps one could avoid such considerations of ought altogether, observing that all people introspect</p>\n\n<p><img src="https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110523.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>\n\n<p>...and it is the work of Socrates & co to help them do what they seek to do already more fruitfully.</p>\n\n<p>This feels a little unsatisfying, though: somewhat straw-mannish to claim there is nothing qualitatively different in the self-examinations of the Athenians and those of Socrates. At the risk of incorrectness, then: Mr. Hume- to the scaffold!</p>\n\n<p>Building on the original dummy question ("Why would..."), I would like to reach for my meta-ethical breeze-block of choice, in R.M. Hare's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescriptivism_%28philosophy%29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">universal prescriptivism</a>, which ascribes the origin of moral injunctions as non-directed imperatives that emerge from a society ("Don't kill!"). In this framework, the morality of prescribing introspection is identical with the morality of introspection itself, which in turn stems (as articulated by the OP) from the imperative that as moral beings we must grapple with reality- something we would fail to do without introspection.</p>\n\n<p>Again, though, (although my use of Hare is based purely on my thinking he happens to be right) I suspect people will think I'm cheating here. So perhaps, to be as general as possible, let's talk the social contracts.</p>\n\n<p>In the end, it is a truism that groups with common goals and common values achieve those goals and actuate those values with greater efficacy than the leading brand. The impulse to spread a cultural more that is beneficial (or at least impossible to get rid of- once you introspect, aside from alcohol or a coathanger up your nostril, there's no going back!), is one that leads to a more cohesive, more productive society, more capable of modelling a universal in-group. </p>\n\n<p>There is selfishness there too, certainly: If I never saw another TV talent show again, I would be a happier man. But, impractical (though possibly correct) calculations of the relative happiness of Socrates and pigs aside, the moral heart that drives evangelism of the examined life is, in one way or other, the picture of humanity as a shared endeavor that only introspective thought can show in its fullness.</p>\n, <p>Socrates' statement is an admonition to others that they should be more introspective, that they should look inside themselves to see what is good or bad, what kind of values one has and whether one meets them.</p>\n<p>But this is all in the context of others judging -him-. This is simply a more indirect way of pointing out hypocrisy.</p>\n<p>(forgive the scripture but...) NIV Matthew 7:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.</p>\n<p>3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>People are judging Socrates and he is just turning the tables back on to them.</p>\n<p>The context of the hypocrisy is that people (in all cultures) are <strong>already examining others</strong> to such a degree that they judge them left and right without bothering to do so to themselves.</p>\n<p>As to more directly address the question, if you are not examining and judging others you won't be able to learn from their mistakes or successes. To deny examining others wold be somewhat unfeeling and distant from reality. The trick is not to be hypocritical or arrogant (which are both lesser failures than outright saying and doing bad things). It is the extent and pettiness of some judgments which earn the admonition that they should look into their own hearts too.</p>\n, <p>Because meaning is found in difference, and you can't really understand yourself without understanding others. A self-understanding that is fundamentally disconnected from the realities of the world outside of the mind will crumble when confronted with the absurdities of life. An understanding of others without the proverbial walking in someone else's shoes means that you do not understand the ways in which others are similar to yourself—and hence, you don't really understand yourself.</p>\n\n<p>The question arises, however, how much can we really <em>know</em> ourselves? And how much can we really <em>know</em> someone else? Even as we take note of the qualitative difference between the kinds of self-knowledge obtained in introspection vs. the kinds of observations we can make about another person's words and actions from the outside, we all have our own <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/#more-53073" rel="nofollow">blind spots</a>. We lie to others and we lie to ourselves. We can't bring ourselves to accept the truth that perhaps we really did make that mistake, or that perhaps our intentions really weren't as pure as we originally hoped for. </p>\n\n<p>There are someways in which we know ourselves better than our friends know us and other ways in which we are known better by our friends. I think this covering of each other's blindsides is essential to a fuller understanding of ourselves, and if as these reactionary critics might argue, "It's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values", then to achieve that end you would need the help of another person to examine your beliefs. Your desire not to be known by another who exposes certain aspects of your character if undeniably true is in some sense an extension of your desire not to be known by yourself.</p>\n, <p>It depends. People are not equal. And people are not unique. So are their lives.</p>\n\n<p>When you examine lives of others - you <strong>must</strong> get something for you out of that examination. And thus - examining (seemingly) great people, or examining unique people, or examining people, that you don't understand - is often very beneficial for you. But there are diminishing returns - the more people you are examining, and the deeper you examine them - the less (new) information you will get from them. </p>\n\n<p>Same with fake lives of celebrities or fiction characters - examining them is like eating food, made from cardboard. </p>\n, <p>This is a great question and I hope I won't be the only person to grapple with it.</p>\n\n<p>There must be a calculation that balances the pain and effort of examining another's life with the cost of not doing so. The argument would seem to be that there is little to no cost associated with leaving others to their unreflective state and substantial cost to examining them. If so, we would be advised to let sleeping dogs lie.</p>\n\n<p>One method to alter the calculation would be to find a benefit that both parties could share which will tip the scales back toward examination. No doubt Socrates would point to the general improvement to the state of Athens as a positive good that might arise from general introspection. If bad habits of thought are routinely subject to the light of reason and analysis, perhaps they will die out. And if Athenians in general are less subject to bad reasoning, they will be able to make wise decisions about their city and fellow citizens.</p>\n\n<p>But I imagine there are deeper reasons to examine the lives of others. In my experience, exploration of how another person thinks gives rise to deeper friendship with that person. How can anyone put a price on friendship? For a good friend would you not make great sacrifices? And though I can't see how to quantify it, I feel like my life is better simply for having a handful of good friends.</p>\n\n<p>I plan to consider this question more in the future—it has great value.</p>\n]] | 32433.0 | 9670.0 | 81.0 | moderator | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/c4752b73a675b7652c1d2d52e5634091?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Joseph Weissman | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/81/joseph-weissman | True | 1873 | 6 | 22 | 1369382427 | 1307494334 | 1.307495e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining | Are the unexamined lives of others worth examining? | <p>Socrates continually admonished his interlocutors to become more introspective, arguing passionately for self-examination:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The unexamined life is not worth living.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>But an examined life is painful, and necessitates an involvement with real problems. This is why it's worth living -- the unreflective are easily trapped into a living death of the mind by mythology, as the reflective sometimes are by ideology. In both cares we are deadened, sleepwalking through our lives blind and deaf, incapable of interacting with the world as it actually is much less imagining the world as it should be.</p>\n\n<p>Now, we know of course that Socrates did not refrain from commenting on the generally unreflective character of his fellow Athenians. This is really the heart of my question. Certain reactionary critics might suggest that it's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values, but why should you go about examining the beliefs and values of others?</p>\n | hqFlxMH/7Pednw | 97 | xfed9AXti2/CBQ | NaN | None | 94.0 | 1538.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Examining the beliefs and values of others is important for several reasons. Firstly, engaging in dialogue with others and understanding different perspectives can broaden our own understanding and help us see things from different angles. This can lead to personal growth and deeper insights into our own beliefs and values.\n\nSecondly, examining the beliefs and values of others can help build empathy and understanding. By engaging with others and trying to understand their perspectives, we can develop a greater sense of compassion and tolerance for different viewpoints.\n\nFurthermore, examining the beliefs and values of others can help foster critical thinking and intellectual humility. By challenging our own beliefs and engaging with differing opinions, we can strengthen our ability to think critically and approach issues with an open mind.\n\nIn summary, examining the beliefs and values of others is not only important for personal growth and understanding, but it is also essential for building empathy, fostering critical thinking, and promoting intellectual humility.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727168392, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAvge77RsSh0Z2hrWxYQLY3Nq4II4', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 180, 'prompt_tokens': 212, 'total_tokens': 392}} |
| 1 | 219 | [[False, False, False, False, False, False]] | [[0, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4]] | [[1411708470, 1401472350, 1338388473, 1334317503, 1312205376, 1310415597]] | [[<p>What you've read are primarily the earlier pseudonymous works. Kierkegaard is sometimes spoken of as having two periods of pseudonymous authorship and simultaneously a prolific set of pastorals written in his own name. If you look at a timeline of both together, you will see he published at a prolific rate and sometimes released a pseudonymous work on the same day as a work in his own name.</p>\n\n<p>In the title of your question, you speak of "understanding Kierkegaard" but in the body of your question, you speak of understanding the pseudonymous works. I will address both and the resources I take to be necessary for either goal.</p>\n\n<p>If you want to understand Kierkegaard, I would think you need the following: (a) a thorough background in modern philosophy especially Kant and Hegel, (b) a familiarity with Lutheran Christianity in Denmark and its history, (c) reading mostly the pseudonymous works of which I would recommend the following: Part of <em>Either/Or</em>, <em>Philosophical Fragments</em>, <em>Fear and Trembling</em>, and <em>Sickness unto Death</em>. In terms of his own authorship, I would recommend <em>Works of Love</em> and 1 discourse -- <em>Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing</em>. It would also be helpful to read editions that include excerpts from his journals which talk about his process of authorship.</p>\n\n<p>To understand a particular pseudonym, I would recommend reading <em>My Point of View as an Author</em> but also excerpts from journals which explain what sort of perspective the respective pseudonym takes -- specifically whether the pseudonym is supposed to be Christian [i.e., do they have faith?] or not and to what extent they are supposed to be able to see through the stages -- the aesthetic, ethical, and religious (or ethico-religious).</p>\n, <p>There is a correspondence between the 'direct' and the 'indirect' works. There tends to be at least one 'direct' work per 'indirect' work, that takes up the same questions and themes as the 'indirect' work and was published at nearly the same time. The parallels between the two bodies of work are very important, and you're missing a great deal if you read the pseudonymous works without the context provided by the signed works.</p>\n\n<p>For instance, October 1843 saw the publication of Fear and Trembling (which is indirect), Repetition (which is indirect), and Three Upbuilding Discourses (which is direct). The first part of Three Upbuilding Discourses is about (at least in part) how love does not depend on external circumstances, but rather on one's internal state. The movement described in Fear and Trembling from being aesthetically determined to being a knight of infinite resignation to being a knight of faith is precisely the movement by which a person comes to live as though the claim that love does not depend on external circumstances is true. The love of the aesthetic person depends entirely on external circumstances; the love of the knight of infinite resignation is partly spiritual and internal, but also partly external (in a different way) and so they despair; and the love of the knight of faith is internal and spiritual.</p>\n\n<p>This is just one of many such parallels between the pseudonymous works and the signed works. In fact, it's almost like there's a kind of conversation between the two bodies of work, between Kierkegaard and his pseudonyms.</p>\n\n<p>This idea is explained much more fully by Mark Sinnett in his book <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0951613626" rel="nofollow">Restoring the Conversation</a>, which is excellent.</p>\n, <p>Kierkegaard's goal for his authorship was to lead his readers toward a way of living that he considered the best that a human being could live. To accomplish this he used "direct" modes of communication in which he described for his readers what he believed (and signed it) and "indirect" communication in which he described alternative points of view that prevailed during his time. He intended his reader to see himself or herself in these alternatives and Kierkegaard would then develop these to their logical extreme. He used pseudonyms for this indirect communication. For example in "Either/Or", volume I represents the aesthetic life which, in its most complete form is Romanticism. Volume II represents the life of bourgeois virtue, Hegelianism applied to marriage, vocation and friendship. The exception to this account of volume II is the final letter of the priest from Jutland, which hints of a third way. For more, see my "Kiekegaard's Philosophy: Self-Deception and Cowardice in the Present Age". </p>\n, <p>There's an essay in Either/Or that made me think I got the sense of what Kierkegaard was trying to do. Kierkegaard had an extremely well developed sense of aesthetics. But here was this man, arguing that he had found a proof of why Mozart's Don Giovanni was the best work of music that there ever could be.</p>\n\n<p>That's a ridiculous claim, and he argues it pretty well. I got the sense that that was the whole gist of the pseudonymous works... that they're about complexity and sophistication and philosophical argumentation that's designed to lead people out to something further... and taking it so far that they're revealed to be preposterous.</p>\n\n<p>His signed works (I'm thinking Works of Love and The Point of View) go the other way. They're more religious, but so was The Sickness Unto Death. I thought what was distinctive about them was that their direction was in reverse. They went from sophistication back to simplicity.</p>\n\n<p>If the sophisticated arguments in Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works are still impressive, I think perhaps read more of them... 'till they seem ridiculous. I got the sense that the signed works were intended for those who had been broken or made weary by the pseudonymous works.</p>\n, <p>The answer to your question depends largely on what it is you wish to get out of Kierkegaard's works. </p>\n\n<p>If you're unsure whether reading the theological works are worth the effort, there are several resources that can help you decide: one is <a href="http://sorenkierkegaard.org/" rel="nofollow">D. Anthony Storm's excellent Kierkegaard website</a> which contains summaries and analyses of all of Kierkegaard's works; another is <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0691127883" rel="nofollow">Joakim Garff's Kierkegaard biography</a> which treats of all of the works, pseudonymous and otherwise, within the context of Kierkegaard's life.</p>\n, <p>Well, I have not read any of Kierkegaard's writings (but I'd like to at some point). However, an author who uses pseudonyms usually does so to distance themselves from the works that are attributed to the false name. Sometimes authors take up pseudonyms in order to be free from social or political problems if their true identities became known. According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym#Literary_pen_names" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, the Brontë family and Jane Austen wrote pseudonymously for that reason.</p>\n\n<p>Thankfully, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Pseudonymous_authorship" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> actually quotes the author himself on his reasons for using names other than his own:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>... As is well-known, my authorship has two parts: one pseudonymous and the other signed. The pseudonymous writers are poetic creations, poetically maintained so that everything they say is in character with their poetized individualized personalities; sometimes I have carefully explained in a signed preface my own interpretation of what the pseudonym said. Anyone with just a fragment of common sense will perceive that it would be ludicrously confusing to attribute to me everything the poetized characters say. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, I have expressly urged that anyone who quotes something from the pseudonyms will not attribute the quotation to me (see my postscript to Concluding Postscript). It is easy to see that anyone wanting to have a literary lark merely needs to take some verbatim quotations from "The Seducer," then from Johannes Climacus, then from me, etc., print them together as if they were all my words, show how they contradict each other, and create a very chaotic impression, as if the author were a kind of lunatic. Hurrah! That can be done. In my opinion anyone who exploits the poetic in me by quoting the writings in a confusing way is more or less a charlatan or a literary toper.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>To me, that indicates that Kierkegaard himself preferred to think of his pseudonyms as separate individuals as if they were characters in a novel rather than alternative representations of himself. It's not the case, it seems, that he was writing his "true thoughts" in his pseudonymous works.</p>\n\n<p>As to whether you should read them, that depends entirely on how important it is to you to recover the true content of the philosopher's thoughts. I've asked what I think to be a <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/728/are-all-philosophers-subject-to-a-variation-of-the-socrates-problem">related question</a> on the feasibility of accomplishing that goal in the general case.</p>\n]] | 55884.0 | 748.0 | 65.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e00403e6a08fc4499057d8be5b85709?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Tom Morris | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/65/tom-morris | True | 746 | 6 | 15 | 1411708470 | 1307573085 | 1.307708e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/219/do-kierkegaards-non-pseudonymous-writings-enable-one-to-understand-kierkegaard | Do Kierkegaard's non-pseudonymous writings enable one to understand Kierkegaard's philosophy much? | <p>As I read them, Kierkegaard's writings can be split into two groups: the mostly philosophical psuedonymous, and more theological non-pseudonymous works.</p>\n\n<p>I have read primarily the pseudonymous works (<em>Either-Or</em>, <em>Concluding Unscientific Postscript</em>, <em>Fear and Trembling</em>) and a few other bits and pieces (including <em>The Book on Adler</em> and the <em>Two Ages</em> review).</p>\n\n<p>So I'm wondering, do the non-pseudonymous works (the "discourses" and so on) add much to the understanding of the pseudonymous/philosophical works to justify spending time reading them?</p>\n | /o7AnFeX3QJGXA | 86 | 5YBTXlV02suc8A | NaN | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Kierkegaard\'s writings can definitely be categorized into the two groups you mentioned: the pseudonymous philosophical works and the non-pseudonymous theological works. While the pseudonymous works are more explicitly focused on philosophical ideas and constructs, the non-pseudonymous works, such as the "discourses," letters, and sermons, delve more deeply into theological and existential themes.\n\nThe non-pseudonymous works provide a different perspective on Kierkegaard\'s thought and offer an insight into his personal beliefs and faith. While the pseudonymous works explore various philosophical ideas through the lens of different fictional characters, the non-pseudonymous works express Kierkegaard\'s own reflections on themes such as faith, existence, ethics, and the nature of Christianity.\n\nReading the non-pseudonymous works can enrich your understanding of Kierkegaard\'s philosophy by providing a more direct access to his personal voice and beliefs. They can help you see how his philosophical ideas are intertwined with his religious convictions and his own struggle with faith and existence.\n\nOverall, while the non-pseudonymous works may not directly elaborate on the themes presented in the pseudonymous works, they offer a valuable complement to Kierkegaard\'s overall body of work and can deepen your appreciation and understanding of his philosophical and theological ideas. If you have already engaged with Kierkegaard\'s pseudonymous works and found them to be of interest, exploring his non-pseudonymous writings may indeed be worthwhile to further enrich your understanding of his philosophy.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727323634, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABa4YM2W7EIrTKIHlYThkZqxVd4Ir', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 299, 'prompt_tokens': 143, 'total_tokens': 442}} |
| 2 | 249 | [[False, False, False, True, False]] | [[2, 1, -5, 6, 4]] | [[1308280056, 1307770252, 1307656862, 1307689396, 1307692194]] | [[<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz" rel="nofollow">Clausewitz</a>'s "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War" rel="nofollow">On War</a>" (1832) is a classic book of strategy inspired by the Napoleonic wars.</p>\n\n<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli" rel="nofollow">Machiavelli</a>'s "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince" rel="nofollow">The Prince</a>" though usually considered a political document, also discusses warfare.</p>\n\n<p>Both of these, just like "The Art of War", are primarily about non-philosophical matters, but contain still quite a bit of commentary that is philosophical.</p>\n\n<p>So these are simply two post-Middle Ages, Western documents. As others have noted, there is a proliferation of modern writing on the subject, but none that stand out as classics like the above two.</p>\n, <p>Many of the points in Sun Tzu's are very relevant even in modern warfare.</p>\n\n<p>Here are a few examples of quotes that can never die:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 2.\n5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never \n been seen associated with long delays.\n6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.\n...\n19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Sun Tzu recognizes that war should end as soon as possible, it is still true today. American invasions to Iraq costs the nation billions that wouldn't have been incurred if the war progressed swiftly.</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 2.\n9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the \n army will have food enough for its needs.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>American "foraged" oil from Iraq.</p>\n\n<p>Now, there are also parts that are outdated in today's modern world, such as this examples about chariot fights:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 2.\n17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been \n taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should \n be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used \n in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and \n kept.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>However, if you fete out the chariots, there are the abstract notion of rewarding soldiers, symbolic flag gestures, and how to treat captured enemies; all are still relevant in modern warfare.</p>\n\n<p>Some are also outdated due to technological advances, sieging a walled city has been much easier since the invention of cannons and modern missiles makes sieges more reasonable than ever:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 3.\n4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. \n The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of \n war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over \n against the walls will take three months more.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Some are less relevant now that the primary means of warfare is no longer foot soldiers/infantries. But infantries still are an important part of modern warfare.</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 6.\n1. Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the \n enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has \n to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>We can't just send a bunch of missiles and hope to win the war.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, some strategems are becoming even more important in modern warfare:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 13.\n4. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and \n conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge.\n5. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be \n obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.\n6. Knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions can only be obtained from other men.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Spying plays a much more important roles in modern warfare than it ever were.</p>\n\n<p>Sun Tzu recognizes the importance of being able to read the "ground" and how to best handle them:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 11.\n46. Therefore, on dispersive ground, I would inspire my men with unity of purpose. \n On facile ground, I would see that there is close connection between all parts \n of my army.\n47. On contentious ground, I would hurry up my rear.\n48. On open ground, I would keep a vigilant eye on my defenses. On ground of \n intersecting highways, I would consolidate my alliances.\n49. On serious ground, I would try to ensure a continuous stream of supplies. On \n difficult ground, I would keep pushing on along the road.\n50. On hemmed-in ground, I would block any way of retreat. On desperate ground, I \n would proclaim to my soldiers the hopelessness of saving their lives.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>While some values might have changed since the time of Sun Tzu, there are many general directions that are ageless.</p>\n, <p>Art of war tried to come up with something that (if ever) could be considered as strategies to use in war, but these a days any fast super computer with sufficient data would easyly overcome any and all strategies that could be fathomed and articulated and even maybe understood by inferior human language and intellect, just like chess the real players are no longer human but machines. </p>\n\n<p>There is no philosophy in the details of how to conduct a war, but just strategies. Art of war was an operational manual in how to conduct war at the age of abacus and arrows, with mechanised snipers that never sleep and never miss a shot Art of war is a good pedesterian intoduction for military enthusists.</p>\n\n<p>There never was/is any philosophy in war itself. Operational research deals with how to maximise the costs to the other side while keeping the cost of doing so minimised. </p>\n\n<p>If there is any philosophy invloved at all, it is about wether to go to war or not, or justification of cost for winning, besides that war is just a game to be played out just like chess.</p>\n\n<p>PS: Most conflicts around the world today are not wars, as by definition of war there should be at least two distinct sides wearing distinct uniforms carrying distinct flags and playing by the rules of what used to be rules of war. </p>\n, <p>There are definitely parts of the Art of War that can lay claim to being philosophy in some sense. This includes such things as much of chapter 1, which explains the reasons behind waging war.</p>\n\n<p>There are also statements like "Know thy enemy" that may be sorted under philosophy at least in a wider sense. (Actual quote a bit longer: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.")</p>\n\n<p>As to the actual question, how the philosophy of war has changed, I can only offer my own opinions, as I don't know of any modern book on the philosophy of war and in any case I would suspect it has changed quite a lot during the last half-century so books may be outdated. :-)</p>\n\n<p>Sun Tze makes recommendations on when you can gain from war. These recommendations made sense in a relatively low-tech society. 2000 years ago a ruler needed not only the economic gains you can get from trade, but also the resources and manpower to defend himself, which required a large area any many people to rule over. </p>\n\n<p>Today, both as a result of the improved trade gains you can get from todays fast and global transportation, the developments in sanitation and health care that makes cities of millions possible, and as a result of the developments in weaponry that makes war a slaughterhouse, it is no longer possible to gain economically from making war. Trade will always be a better option than war, and you no longer need to rule over large areas to rule over many. </p>\n\n<p>The reasons of war have therefore changed, and is now no longer about gaining economic advantages. Except for defense, war is now only waged either to fight injustices or gaining political advantages by looking like you fight injustices. So this has changed.</p>\n\n<p>Sun Tze also, again reasonably from the ancient viewpoint, recommend that you pillage your enemy. "One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own." This philosophy changed when it was clear that crushing and punishing Germany after the War only had negative outcomes. Instead armies today have orders to treat the local population well, and after winning a war the victor is seen to have not only the moral obligation to help rebuild the country, but also an obligation to make friends with the enemy to build on future close relations to prevent future war and increase future trade. </p>\n\n<p>There may be more examples, but this IMO are two examples of how the Philosophy of war has changed.</p>\n, <p>I think that one of the biggest changes in war came with the apparent end of conventional warfare after the Gulf War. It is simply unreasonable for almost any state (a few exceptions, perhaps, but not so many) to expect to confront NATO in so-called 'conventional' ways and be successful. The Art of War speaks at great length of how generals should command, Sun Tzu even mentions that "All war is based on deception." But he took this only insofar as to attack when your enemy thinks you are weak, and to appear strong even when you are weak so as to discourage attack (Baden Powell truly embodied this in the Battle of Mafeking, which also led to the development of the Boy Scout Movement).</p>\n\n<p>Yet modern forms of deception are far more complicated, and warfare conducted in ways that appear far less ordered, than ever before. I think that some of the seminal works now would include <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/index.htm" rel="nofollow">On Guerilla Warfare</a>, by Mao Tse-Tung, and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051125210657/http://www.baader-meinhof.com/students/resources/print/minimanual/manualtext.html" rel="nofollow">Urban Warfare</a>.</p>\n\n<p>These include some philosophy, some straight-up strategy and tactics, and some ideology. With the current trends in combat ranging from conventional to highly asymmetric, I think that these texts should also be included.</p>\n]] | 406484.0 | 325.0 | 84.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4c6b9d1f2d7a185311b008781e158324?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Edward Black | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/84/edward-black | True | 5268 | 5 | 9 | 1421532216 | 1307647496 | 1.308015e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/249/how-has-the-philosophy-of-war-changed-since-sun-tzus-the-art-of-war | How has the philosophy of war changed since Sun Tzu's The Art of War? | <p><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_war" rel="nofollow">The Art of War</a></em>, an ancient military treatise written by Sun Tzu, is composed of thirteen chapters detailing strategies for war ranging from simply laying plans to the extensive use of fire and spies against one's enemies. For centuries, it has been regarded as the definite reading for military strategists, enthusiasts, and warriors of all nature.</p>\n\n<p>It's readings have been taken and adapted to seemingly unrelated fields, such as business, and has influenced great leaders and military men such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon" rel="nofollow">Napoleon Bonaparte</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur" rel="nofollow">General Douglas MacArthur</a>.</p>\n\n<p>My question is this: Since being written in ancient China, there have been many important advances in the technology of war, such as the invention of gunpowder, as well as many important militaristic events that may have influenced the world's views on war, such as the Mongol invasion and World War II. <strong>Because of these things, are there any more recent treatises or developments on the philosophy of war that military enthusiasts and strategists should consider?</strong></p>\n | U+yLPbRs6dG2qw | 48 | UqbgYVdxfPey4Q | NaN | None | NaN | 265.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Yes, despite the enduring influence of Sun Tzu\'s "The Art of War," there have been several more recent treatises and developments on the philosophy of war that military enthusiasts and strategists should consider. Here are some examples:\n\n1. "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz: Written in the early 19th century, this treatise by the Prussian general and military theorist remains a classic work on the theory and philosophy of war. Clausewitz\'s ideas on the nature of war, the role of politics in warfare, and the concept of the "fog of war" have had a lasting impact on military thought.\n\n2. "The Principles of War for the Information Age" by Robert Leonhard: This book explores the application of traditional military principles to the modern information age. Leonhard discusses how advances in technology and communication have affected warfare and offers insights on how to adapt military strategy for the 21st century.\n\n3. "Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency" by Roger Trinquier: Trinquier, a French military officer with experience in counterinsurgency operations, provides a detailed analysis of guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency tactics. His insights have been influential in shaping modern counterinsurgency strategies.\n\n4. "The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World" by Rupert Smith: In this book, Smith, a retired British general, argues that traditional concepts of warfare are outdated in the modern era of conflicts characterized by blurred boundaries between war and peace. He advocates for a more flexible and adaptable approach to military strategy.\n\nThese are just a few examples of more recent works that offer valuable insights for military enthusiasts and strategists seeking to understand the complexities of modern warfare. While Sun Tzu\'s principles in "The Art of War" remain relevant, exploring these newer perspectives can provide additional perspectives and ideas for navigating the challenges of contemporary military conflict.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727342407, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABexLPOBOCq9KjU9QWcQYeXg6Q5WB', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 389, 'prompt_tokens': 217, 'total_tokens': 606}} |
| 3 | 341 | [[False, False, True]] | [[0, 1, 4]] | [[1405133598, 1349228867, 1308129475]] | [[<p>Simone Weil, in the continental tradition wrote a brief essay on honour in her book <em>On the Need for Roots</em> which was written during World War 2, at the request of the French Resistance in London in 'connexion with the policy to be pursued after liberation'. She wrote:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>"Honour is a vital need of the soul. The respect due to every human being as such, even if effectively accorded, is not sufficient to satisfy this need, for it is identical for everyone and unchanging; whereas honour has to do with a human being considered not simply as such, but from the point of view of his social surroundings. This need is fully satisfied where each of the social organisms to which a human being belongs allows him to share in a noble tradition enshrined in its past history and given public acknowledgement..."</p>\n</blockquote>\n, <p>A problem with answering the question of what honour is seems to be coloured through the lens of the Romatics such as Roussea. The colouring shades current popular western culture and language. As we know, the Romantic movement was a counter culture to the industrialisation emerging in Europe at the time. The value of intuition and emotion, not pure rationalism. In the USA the Romantics such as Coleridge and Wordsworth were picked up and developed further by Emerson, Thoreau and Fuller - into Transcendentalism. This in turn effected popular culture in the USA and in Europe as communication methods continued to evolve and develop. Now, the number of adaptations of for example the king Arthur myths and the knights of the round table into film format is quite stunning. In this example of course we have the blending of honour within Chivalry and the whole chivalric code alluded to by earlier contributor.</p>\n, <p>I'm not sure exactly what your standard is for a "contemporary philosopher". But you're certainly correct in observing that very few of the well-known modern philosophers deal explicitly with the concept of "honor." And even those who might be correctly fingered as examining the very concept seem to shun the word.</p>\n\n<p>In fact, this is the subject of William Lad Sessions's latest book, entitled <strong><a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1441188347" rel="nofollow"><em>Honor For Us: A Philosophical Analysis, Interpretation and Defense</em></a></strong>, published in late 2010. Sessions is <a href="http://www.wlu.edu/x23721.xml?InsertFile=x23766" rel="nofollow">Professor of Philosophy at Washington & Lee University</a>. The introduction begins dramatically:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Honor pervades human history and contemporary cultures, not least our own. Yet honor is in trouble today. Dishonorable behavior is rampant, to be sure, but we are also confused about honor, about what it is and what it is not. Honor may well be ubiquitous, but the concept of honor is not well understood, either by those who live within honor groups or by those who view themselves as rising above any culture of honor. . . . [M]y account of honor aims at something even more ambitious than descriptive clarity with potentially universal scope (as if that weren't ambition enough!). By exhibiting honor as a <em>normative</em> concept, I hope we might come to see its value for us as well as for others. My account is therefore a philosophical rarity, for philosophers today share the general academic distaste for honor. For most Western academics, honor is a moral pariah, a concept recognized as important to others though not an idea to be taken seriously in one's own life. . . . [T]here has been <em>no</em> serious normative examination of the concept of honor as such. It seems that philosophers, like other academics, are not much interested in honor as a living value in our society today.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The publisher's description bills it as "the first contemporary philosophical inquiry into the concept of honor." Sessions himself says that, "Since the late 19th century, there have been no major philosophical studies of honor. Philosophers have occasionally written narrowly on academic honor systems, deprecating honor as obsolete and a tribal virtue at best, but not as a major subject for a book." He claims that, in fact, honor has received a "bad reputation" that is "not entirely undeserved," considering all the harm that it has caused in the world. He specifically cites examples ranging from terrorism to honor killings. </p>\n\n<p>But he opines that the problem really stems from a pervasive <em>misunderstanding</em> of honor, and that the concept is sorely in need of "clarification." Many philosophers seem to wish to "discard honor altogether as 'obsolete'," when in reality, the "notion of honor remains viable in the face of powerful criticism . . . and has important features which warrant our normative interest." </p>\n\n<p>His philosophical project in the book is to identify six different concepts of honor, which he says are useful in an attempt to make sense out of chaotic situations. These concepts include:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Conferred honor (or reputation)</li>\n<li>Recognition honor (which honors excellence)</li>\n<li>Positional honor (being placed higher than others in society)</li>\n<li>Commitment honor (honoring a principle or ideal)</li>\n<li>Trust honor (honoring a person, including his/her word)</li>\n<li>Personal honor</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>And in fact, he thinks that the sixth central concept of honor—personal honor—is the most important.</p>\n\n<p>Interestingly enough, much of the book's inspiration seems to have come from an undergraduate philosophy course that Sessions has taught on honor since 1999.</p>\n]] | 96859.0 | 654.0 | 87.0 | registered | https://i.sstatic.net/00zTK.jpg?s=256 | Ruben | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/87/ruben | True | 3833 | 3 | 8 | 1405133598 | 1307967980 | 1.308217e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/341/which-contemporary-philosophers-deal-with-the-concept-of-honour-without-dismissi | Which contemporary philosophers deal with the concept of honour without dismissing it out of hand? | <p>Whenever I read about honour (the evaluation of a person's social status as judged by that individual's community), it is usually in a negative context (e.g., honour killings) or strictly comparative (e.g., cultures of guilt versus cultures of honour).</p>\n\n<p>This comes as a bit of a surprise, as my personal (though probably somewhat naïve) view is that honour has been an important concept throughout our evolution. Societies of law, on the other hand, came about rather late by comparison.</p>\n\n<p>The Stack Exchange network, for example, apparently thrives quite well on its reputation system, and the Area 51 "commitment" that all of you present here are upholding would be worthless if not for the "dishonor" of flouting commitments.</p>\n\n<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure" rel="noreferrer">Hagakure</a> may be one such important ancient code of honour, although I don't know whether there is much reasoning behind it (or other accounts of Bushido). When I watched Ghost Dog, it felt pretty deep, though ;-)</p>\n\n<p>Specifically, I'm curious if there are any thinkers that don't (out of hand) dismiss the concept of honour as inferior to the rule of law or conscience-based dignity. I would also be interested in contemporary thinkers who themselves come from a culture of honour and choose to embrace it, rather than dismiss it, but it's probably hard to find such people in academia. Anyone have any leads?</p>\n | QO5Kg7FUAjOzCg | 11 | brzq1LPz+vmTDg | NaN | None | 75.0 | 377.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "It's interesting that you're reflecting on the concept of honor and its significance in human societies throughout history. Honor has indeed been a fundamental concept in many cultures, shaping social behaviors and norms. While honor can have positive aspects, such as fostering respect, integrity, and a sense of duty, it can also manifest in harmful ways, like in the case of honor killings or perpetuating rigid social hierarchies.\n\nIn Western philosophical thought, the contrast between honor-based societies and rule of law-based societies has often been framed in terms of honor versus dignity. Dignity, as a concept, has been associated with autonomy, equality, and inherent worth of every individual, often seen as a foundational principle of modern liberal societies. On the other hand, honor is often seen as more tied to social status, reputation, and communal values.\n\nHowever, there are indeed thinkers who have explored honor in a more nuanced way, recognizing its complexity and potential virtues. For example, philosophers such as Aristotle and Confucius have discussed honor as a moral and social virtue that can contribute to the well-being of individuals and communities. These thinkers have emphasized the importance of honor in cultivating virtuous character and promoting social harmony.\n\nIn contemporary times, there are scholars and thinkers who still engage with the concept of honor and its role in modern societies. While it may be less common to find academics directly advocating for a return to traditional honor codes, there are those who study honor cultures and seek to understand their dynamics without necessarily endorsing them uncritically.\n\nIf you're interested in exploring this topic further, you may want to look into works by ethicists, political theorists, or anthropologists who examine honor, morality, and social norms from cross-cultural perspectives. Engaging with a diverse range of perspectives can offer insights into the complexities of honor and its relevance in contemporary society.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727255287, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABIIBFd3cCejHJydzHuRpPeFbO6jK', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 367, 'prompt_tokens': 301, 'total_tokens': 668}} |
| 4 | 424 | [[False, False]] | [[2, 9]] | [[1357920399, 1308257887]] | [[<p>Disclaimer 1: This question asks for a genealogical approach to philosophy, top-down, yet philosophy, in it's natural order of evolution, is learned down-top. Here we will have to perform some detective work, unless you want to hear as an answer: logic, epistemology, Descartes and Greece...</p>\n\n<p>Disclaimer 2: Terms can be borrowed between fields. When that happens they do take on other meanings and significance. Borrowed terms will then be specialized according to the field they are now used in. For example it's quite common to use terms from geography, origami, army, etc. fields in philosophy. These borrowed terms are generally used in a figurative way but may take on a specific or specialized meaning depending on the field in question and the author. It's also common that some well know philosophical terms need a redefinition for a specific author, time period, language, ...</p>\n\n<p>Disclaimer 3: This questions asks for a longer answer; unfortunately at this time I can only give some directions or a starting point.</p>\n\n<p>Given the scope, the nature and the specific understanding of some terms like "ontology" in the semantic web I'd say that its terms are likely a derivative of the continental branch of philosophy, semiotics seem to be the one to blame here. If the direction seems interesting I may try to elaborate a little more.</p>\n\n<p>[edit]</p>\n\n<p>While the link to semiotics in particular and structuralism in general seemed promising, I cannot find any historical link or correlation between them. These two projects don't even seem to share any "spirit of the time". Structuralism came under attack in the 60s when in parallel some of the foundations for the semantic network model was explored, and by the 90s structuralism was clearly abandoned.</p>\n\n<p>I was not able to track the exact genesis of the semantic web but it seems linked to western culture and is probably rooted in some cognitive and multidisciplinary study like Artificial Intelligence.</p>\n\n<p>Reading more about web semantics also brings two different visions for it, one far away of any philosophical concern and quite practical in its scope, the other one might be interpreted as more philosophical. Unfortunately most of the papers I read lean towards the practical direction, which concentrates on how to make the web more useful. \nEven the term "ontology" is often replaced by the more ambiguous term "vocabulary", ambiguous because while vocabulary is more practical and understandable it also removes the idea of a specific knowledge linked to a being to just be a set of terms. And while an ontology tends or implies to be exhaustive, that's not a requirement for a vocabulary.</p>\n\n<p>So on one hand a semantic web is just a tool to improve the web by making it more useful. On the other hand the semantic web, and that's how I understood it at first, was a project to organize, understand and access human knowledge. In this sense and only in this sense you can draw a parallel with structuralism. Both structuralism and the semantic web share some premise or axiom. \nFirst you need to have a system and underneath this system a structure which can be extracted and studied even when not visible. This structure is in fact understood as the reason for existence of the studied system. Every element inside the system is then apprehended and understood as where it sits in the structure.\nWe may have another parallel, with some reserve, in the way the semantic web handles triple. Regarding linguistic Saussure said "there are only differences with no positive terms". You can see that in the way the semantic web structures its content where you differentiate form term to term: animal -> feline -> cat and where each terms declines its meaning based on its relative position in opposition to other terms.</p>\n\n<p>Even if there's no historical relation or correlation between these two fields (and the semantic web currently seems more like a project than a field), they do share some premises, and given the fact that structuralism is a well known flaw, I am tempted to believe that the same applies to the semantic web. But as long as the semantic web is used in this practical project to make the web better and doesn't start a crusade pretending that the structure it's based on is objective and real, we should be fine...</p>\n, <blockquote>\n<p>I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize.</p>\n<p>– Tim Berners-Lee, 1999</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Taking the above quote from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, it would seem that the idea of a Semantic Web might be traced back to Aristotle himself. Broadly speaking, Aristotle believed that meaning can be found in the world around us in contrast to Plato, who believed that real meaning cannot be accessed directly from observation. The idea Berners-Lee endorses is that\ngiven enough data (and the Web has plenty of that), an automated algorithm might be developed that can make intelligent inference about human activity. It can, in a sense, distill meaning from the chaos.</p>\n<p>But the project also seems aware that people can give the Web a helping hand when it comes to producing meaning. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language" rel="noreferrer"><strong>Web Ontology Language (OWL)</strong></a> provides tools for authors to establish axioms about their data. But I should be quick to point out that the word <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29" rel="noreferrer">ontology</a> has a different, but related, meaning in computer science than it does in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology" rel="noreferrer">philosophy</a>.</p>\n<p>In fact the more I examine the subject, the more I think the philosophical terms owe more to the field of computer science than to philosophy as a more general discipline.</p>\n]] | 29108.0 | 281.0 | 234.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/f13cb1b1bd8b16bf6dc6eda558e162a0?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Stefano Borini | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/234/stefano-borini | True | 1019 | 2 | 18 | 1359469383 | 1308253488 | 1.357836e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/424/what-are-the-connections-between-philosophy-and-semantic-web | What are the connections between philosophy and semantic web? | <p>I worked with semantic web technology, and got interested in philosophy out of it. In semantic web, concepts such as semantics, ontologies, and logical inferences are fundamental to understand the technical discipline and make the best out of it. Clearly, all this conceptual framework must arise from philosophy, and specifically from some part of it. </p>\n\n<p>I would like to know the historical works and personalities which inspired the vision that then became the basis for the semantic web, from the root of philosophical discussion (e.g. greece) to the modern day.</p>\n | QkWy8ugEKgm1gw | 30 | yy1Te+AdLcNGpQ | NaN | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The ideas and concepts that underpin the field of the semantic web have indeed been influenced by a range of philosophical ideas throughout history. While the genesis of the semantic web as a technical discipline can be traced back to the work of Tim Berners-Lee and others in the late 20th century, its philosophical roots can be found in various historical works and personalities. Here are some key figures and their contributions that have inspired the vision of the semantic web:\n\n1. **Plato (427-347 BC)**: Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, made significant contributions to the development of ontology and epistemology. His theory of forms, which posits that abstract entities represent the true reality behind physical phenomena, has had a lasting influence on ontology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being.\n\n2. **Aristotle (384-322 BC)**: Aristotle, another ancient Greek philosopher and student of Plato, made important contributions to logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. His works on categorization and logic laid the foundation for later developments in formal ontology and reasoning, which are essential components of the semantic web.\n\n3. **Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)**: Leibniz, a German philosopher and mathematician, is known for his work on the concept of a universal language or characteristica universalis, a symbolic language that could represent all human knowledge. His ideas about the encoding of knowledge and logic into a formal language have influenced later developments in artificial intelligence and knowledge representation, including the semantic web.\n\n4. **Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)**: Peirce, an American philosopher and logician, made important contributions to semiotics, the study of signs and symbols. His pragmatic philosophy and his framework for classifying signs into iconic, indexical, and symbolic categories have influenced the development of knowledge representation schemes in the semantic web.\n\n5. **Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)**: Whitehead and Russell collaborated on the seminal work "Principia Mathematica" (1910-1913), in which they sought to ground mathematics in logic. Their work on logical atomism and formal logic provided a formal foundation for later work in knowledge representation and reasoning, which are central to the semantic web.\n\nThese are just a few examples of the philosophical ideas and figures that have contributed to the development of the conceptual framework underpinning the semantic web. The interdisciplinary nature of the field draws on insights from philosophy, logic, mathematics, computer science, and other disciplines to create a rich and complex framework for understanding and representing knowledge on the web.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727161027, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAtlrNTt32NHGFwQYoYM3XfFdQg5y', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 545, 'prompt_tokens': 131, 'total_tokens': 676}} |
| 5 | 470 | [[True]] | [[18]] | [[1308343438]] | [[<p>There isn't anything wrong with justifying a claim that Peano Arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete by reference to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems; the claim is a direct application of the first Incompleteness Theorem.</p>\n\n<p>Gödel showed that any formal system of adequate expressive power for doing formal arithmetic was either inconsistent or incomplete in the sense that there would be sentences in the language of that system which that system could neither prove nor refute. </p>\n\n<p>Tarski's theorem showed that no consistent formal language could define its own truth predicate. A a special case of that, no consistent formal system of arithmetic can include a predicate which applies to all and only the true sentences of arithmetic in the language of that formal system (and, on the intended interpretation of that language).</p>\n\n<p>Smullyan's point, as I understand it, is that: </p>\n\n<p>1) With the result that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in a system of arithmetic, Tarski "almost" got Gödel's results. </p>\n\n<p>2) Much of the (somewhat sloppy) philosophical discussion about Gödel's theorems takes them to be showing that there are unprovable arithmetical truths. However, Gödel's proofs of his theorems were expressed purely syntactically in that they made no reference to truth but only to formal provability within a purely syntactically defined formal system. Indeed since Tarski gave the first satisfactory definition of truth for formal systems in 1936, whereas Gödel's results were published in 1931, there was no formally tractable notion of truth available to Gödel. Essentially, Gödel found a clever way in which to interpret arithmetical sentences as being <em>about</em> formal proofs in arithmetic and constructed a sentence that "said" of itself that it was not provable within the system of arithmetic. <em>If</em> the system is consistent that sentence will be true. However, Gödel's conclusion was <em>not</em> that there were unprovable truths; rather it was that every system adequate for arithmetic is either inconsistent or would have arithmetical sentences the system did not decide. This in no way invokes a concept of truth. </p>\n\n<p>3) The point of Gödel's theorems is that arithmetic is not mechanistically decidable. Tarski's point is that no consistent system can define a truth predicate for the language in which it is articulated. Of the two, Tarski's seems to have richer philosophical import. (For instance, no formal model of English could define "true in English" while Gödel's results do not seem to apply to English at all.)</p>\n\n<p>I am unaware of any example "proof" where appeal is made to Gödel that really ought be made to Tarski in the way your questions asks. (But, it is a big world.) </p>\n]] | 140666.0 | 2818.0 | 162.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4881e74d5b966aca3f5945a974e8d91b?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Xodarap | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/162/xodarap | True | 4496 | 1 | 17 | 1369160935 | 1308330216 | 1.369161e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/470/when-it-is-correct-to-use-tarskis-undefinability-theorem-versus-g%c3%b6dels-incompl | When it is correct to use Tarski's undefinability theorem versus Gödel's incompleteness theorem? | <blockquote>\n <p>Smullyan (1991, 2001) has argued forcefully that Tarski's undefinability theorem deserves much of the attention garnered by Gödel's incompleteness theorems. That the latter theorems have much to say about all of mathematics and more controversially, about a range of philosophical issues (e.g., Lucas 1961) is less than evident. Tarski's theorem, on the other hand, is not directly about mathematics but about the inherent limitations of any formal language sufficiently expressive to be of real interest. Such languages are necessarily capable of enough self-reference for the diagonal lemma to apply to them. The broader philosophical import of Tarski's theorem is more strikingly evident. - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem" rel="noreferrer">wikipedia</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Can someone give an example of a "proof" which incorrectly uses Gödel's incompleteness theorem when it should instead use Tarski's undefinability theorem and point out the mistake? For example, I frequently hear the claim "Peano arithmetic is incomplete/inconsistent" justified by an appeal to Gödel - what's wrong with this?</p>\n | +E/N7KAOOrVU9A | 2 | P6wyHQ9MnB9EZw | NaN | None | 64.0 | 477.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Certainly! Here is an example to illustrate the mistake of using Gödel\'s incompleteness theorem when Tarski\'s undefinability theorem should be applied:\n\nClaim: Peano arithmetic is incomplete.\n\nIncorrect "proof": The proof attempts to use Gödel\'s incompleteness theorem to support the claim. It might incorrectly reason as follows: Gödel\'s incompleteness theorem shows that in any consistent axiomatic system that is strong enough to express Peano arithmetic (such as Peano arithmetic itself), there exist true statements that are unprovable within the system. Since Peano arithmetic is such a system, it must be incomplete.\n\nMistake: The mistake here is in conflating incompleteness in the sense of Gödel\'s incompleteness theorem with incompleteness in the sense of Tarski\'s theorem. Gödel\'s theorem shows that there exist true statements within Peano arithmetic that cannot be proven within the system itself. However, this does not directly imply that Peano arithmetic is incomplete in the sense that it lacks the ability to define certain concepts or self-referential statements, which is the focus of Tarski\'s undefinability theorem.\n\nCorrect approach: To correctly argue for the claim that Peano arithmetic is incomplete using Tarski\'s undefinability theorem, one would need to show that Peano arithmetic is unable to define certain concepts or self-referential statements that are intuitively meaningful. Tarski\'s theorem emphasizes the limitations of formal systems in capturing all aspects of truth and meaning, rather than focusing on provability within the system itself.\n\nIn summary, it\'s important to differentiate between Gödel\'s incompleteness theorem, which deals with provability within formal systems, and Tarski\'s undefinability theorem, which focuses on the limitations of formal languages in capturing certain concepts and self-reference. In the context of claiming that Peano arithmetic is incomplete, it would be more appropriate to consider Tarski\'s theorem and the ability of Peano arithmetic to define certain concepts rather than Gödel\'s incompleteness theorem.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727168083, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAvbfZeEf01m8oGIntq9xtMlqgwUG', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 416, 'prompt_tokens': 241, 'total_tokens': 657}} |
| 6 | 617 | [[False, False]] | [[2, 3]] | [[1308956435, 1308948179]] | [[<p>To me it looks like a false dichotomy that stems from improper inversion of the 'opposite' concept that not saving somebody's life if you have the chance to makes you responsible for his death.</p>\n\n<p>So, looks more like typical Hollywood fiction. </p>\n, <p>I think it is clear that no-one in society would have an interest in there being such a convention. </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>On the one hand, anyone who thought that they might someday need saving wouldn't favor the policy, since it could mean at the moment of danger that a potential saver would feel inhibited from actually doing the saving, out of concern about the burden arising from the extra responsibility that the policy entails. Thus, before or even during the moment of danger, the would-be saved person, worrying that they might not get saved, would prefer society to abandon the policy.</p></li>\n<li><p>On the other hand, a person who just wants to save another person's life at that moment wouldn't want to be burdened with the extra responsibility of looking after them forever onwards, and hence would also prefer to abandon the policy.</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>A more logical policy, perhaps, and one which also sometimes appears in the popular culture venues you mention, calls in contrast for the saved person to have some lifelong duty towards the saver. </p>\n]] | 336602.0 | 451.0 | 259.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a4fd4c34547537e3016edb24f106e223?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Beofett | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/259/beofett | True | 10478 | 2 | 2 | 1386542384 | 1308935298 | 1.309029e+09 | None | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/617/does-the-idea-that-saving-someones-life-makes-you-responsible-for-them-have-any | Does the idea that saving someone's life makes you responsible for them have any real philosophical roots, or is it merely a Hollywood trope? | <p>I have heard this idea before: if you save a person's life, then forever after, you will be responsible for them. The only references I can find to this concept are vague claims that it is an Asian concept, and that it was once referenced in an episode of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/" rel="nofollow">Kung Fu</a>.</p>\n\n<p>However, I find the concept very interesting. Is this a part of, or result of, a specific philosophy? Is there documented discussion elaborating on this idea? Or is it merely an amusing fiction created by Hollywood?</p>\n | Zo08PcjuVLwhdw | 41 | o8eebww8LjmRJw | 1.324878e+09 | not constructive | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "The idea that saving someone's life creates a sense of responsibility or indebtedness is a common theme in various cultures, and it has been explored in philosophy, literature, and folklore. While I am not aware of a specific philosophy that outlines this concept as a core tenet, the idea of a moral obligation or duty to someone who has been helped or saved is a recurring theme in ethical thought.\n\nIn Confucianism, a traditional Chinese philosophical system, the concept of reciprocity and filial piety plays a significant role. According to Confucian teachings, there is an emphasis on relationships and obligations between individuals, including the idea that one should repay acts of kindness and help received. This could potentially be connected to the notion that saving someone's life creates a lifelong bond of responsibility.\n\nMoreover, in various religious and spiritual traditions, the idea of helping others and creating connections through acts of kindness is often highlighted. In Buddhism, for example, the concept of karma emphasizes the consequences of one's actions and the interconnectedness of all beings. Saving a life may be seen as creating a karmic bond that entails responsibility or obligation towards the person saved.\n\nWhile the specific notion that saving someone's life leads to lifelong responsibility may not be a formal doctrine in any particular philosophy, it resonates with broader ideas about moral duty, reciprocity, and interconnectedness that are found in many cultural and philosophical traditions. The portrayal of this concept in popular media, such as in the referenced episode of Kung Fu, may draw on these deeper threads of ethical thought to create dramatic or thought-provoking narratives.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727182109, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAzFt7t9RBxJtAlEixel2t1L7WYYE', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 320, 'prompt_tokens': 129, 'total_tokens': 449}} |
| 7 | 728 | [[False, True, False]] | [[3, 5, 1]] | [[1310015196, 1310372658, 1310424835]] | [[<p>Let's disentangle a few things. The first is Plato's dialogical mode of philosophical exposition, the other is a general problem of historical relativism and the role of criticism-translation in "accessing" the "truth" about an author.</p>\n\n<p>Just in passing let's note that Socrates may well have been a literary invention on the part of Plato; there is certainly little enough evidence of him outside the dialogues -- a few humorous dramas by Plato's contemporaries treating the subject of his enlightening but perhaps "super-literary" work with a bit of ironic humor of their own. At any rate the Socratic problem may not really be as important as the larger and more general question about the accessibility of the truth of the work.</p>\n\n<p>The problem of expression cannot be reduced to interpretation, the search for an origin or fundamental truth; an author may not be the end-all be-all of meaning. There may also be other categories: Deleuze and Guattari suggest there may also be another modality, which they term "free indirect discourse" (examined closely <em>A Thousand Plateaus</em>.) So in both cases we may be chasing a ghost in terms of locating a final truth or meaning to a philosophy or theory or even just an expression; after all, a thing is defined by what it can do, and the truth is that we don't know the limit of a what a concept, a feeling, a perception can do. We are always unlocking new interconnections, unfolding new layers and details and abstractions; the valid interpretation of a philosophers' expressions is particularly problematic in this light, as we are perhaps always seeing them "again for the first time," returning again and again but seeing new senses or depths.</p>\n\n<p>This doesn't mean we are incapable of seeking after the truth of thinkers and their works and theories, on the contrary -- we have to recognize we cannot exhaust the depths of these concepts and expressions, that we don't know what they're capable of. Hence some caution is suggested in taking all this seriously, as I <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining">sort of hinted in my own question relating to Socrates</a> (which I really loved your answer to, by the way.)</p>\n, <p>I'd suggest you take a look at Gadamer's "Truth and Method".</p>\n\n<p>EDIT:</p>\n\n<p>Despite my better judgment, I'm going to try to flesh out this answer a bit.</p>\n\n<p>First: as the original question points out, the "Socrates problem" is not really relevant to the actual question at hand. The "Socrates problem", in the sense of "the problem of the historical Socrates" is quite unusual in that we possess no texts attributed to Socrates, but rather, three distinct reports of him (coming from Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon), each of whom had their own polemical purposes. This problem does not apply to the vast majority of philosophers we're interested in, who left texts.</p>\n\n<p>So, the question then becomes one of the interpretation of texts: how do we know when we have interpreted a text "correctly"? Further, what would "correctly" mean in this case: the recovery of authorial intent? The branch of philosophy [*] that these questions belong to is termed 'hermeneutics', and there exists a vast literature on the subject. If one were interested in a historical view, Schleiermacher would be the place to start, but I wouldn't recommend that, for the following reason:</p>\n\n<p>There exists a seminal text in hermeneutics, which stands as the <em>sine qua non</em> for all later work in the field: Truth and Method, by Hans-Georg Gadamer. Attempting to discuss hermeneutics without reference to Gadamer would be like trying to discuss physics without recourse to Newton-- you'd spend half of your time reinventing his vocabulary, even if you wanted to disagree with him.</p>\n\n<p>In short, if questions of interpretation interest you at all, there's not much point in going any further before you have grappled with this text.</p>\n\n<p>Fortunately, it is available in English translation, ubiquitous at libraries, cheap in paperback, and easy to read.</p>\n\n<p>Thus, in my opinion, there is only one answer to your question: take a look at Gadamer's "Truth and Method". When there is a major philosophical text that deals directly with the fundamental problematic underlying your question, there's no other responsible answer than a simple referral to the text in question. And, naturally, if for some reason one is unable to take the time to read the primary text, there are easily available secondary and tertiary resources which are easily found with the knowledge of the author and title of the primary work.</p>\n\n<p>[*] and/or philology, but that's a discussion for another day.</p>\n, <p>If you are a causal determinist and you believe that the mind is wholly the product of physical processes, theoretically it should someday be possible to completely access other people's minds and—hooking them up to ours—experience the world exactly as they do. For people who died prior to the invention of this technology, we can only theorize as to what actually was going through their minds. After the invention of this technology, however, finding out what a person was thinking would be as simple as loading up a computer chip.</p>\n\n<p>Honestly though, it is not likely we will need to go that far. It is likely we will integrate our minds with computers (thus making memory easily accessible) long before we develop the technology that bridges the gap between seeing billions of neurons fire and actually having phenomenological experience ("qualia", so to speak).</p>\n\n<p>That's just my prediction, anyway.</p>\n]] | 1083.0 | 7405.0 | 73.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8989210e0bee8c33c698cfbb79a2afe7?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Jon Ericson | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/73/jon-ericson | True | 1119 | 3 | 18 | 1375455279 | 1309995745 | 1.375455e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/728/are-all-philosophers-subject-to-a-variation-of-the-socrates-problem | Are all philosophers subject to a variation of the Socrates problem? | <p>Obviously, the specific problem of knowing who Socrates was and what he taught is wholly unique to the man. However, reading books and articles about philosophers and philosophy, I'm struck by the occasions when later commentators disagree about what particular thinkers actually taught. Obviously, for living philosophers, it's possible to simply ask them. But even the best of us seem destined to die and leave nothing but memories and the corpus of texts (and other recordings) that we bother to archive and which are preserved. </p>\n\n<p>The problem is that few thoughts are complete and unambiguous. Those that are seem trivial. Over time, the context in which thinking is done becomes diffused and obscured by new context. Even fundamental tools of thought, such as language and basic assumptions change over time. It seems like a great difficulty in understanding a thinker from a different era is to put oneself in their mode of thinking, which may be impossible.</p>\n\n<p>Is this an intractable problem or is it possible some innovation in communication can solve it?</p>\n\n<p>(For those who are unaware, please read <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/supplement.html">Early Attempts to Solve the Socratic Problem</a>.)</p>\n | V9RjXY6i9PsPNQ | 96 | ZS6hn1h169KQWg | NaN | None | 33.0 | 751.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The issue you have raised about understanding the teachings and thoughts of historical figures like philosophers from different eras is indeed a complex and challenging one. The problem you described, often referred to as the "hermeneutic circle" in philosophy, deals with the circular nature of interpretation where the interpreter\'s understanding of a text is shaped by their own background, beliefs, and context, while simultaneously being required to understand the text in its original context and intentions. \n\nWhile it is true that texts and interpretations can become muddled over time due to changing contexts and language, there are some strategies that scholars employ to try to bridge the gap between the past and the present. These include studying historical and cultural contexts, engaging in textual analysis, examining the influence of contemporary ideas on the philosopher, and exploring the reception of the philosopher\'s work over time.\n\nAdditionally, advances in technology and communication might offer new possibilities for enhancing our understanding of historical figures and their ideas. For example, digital humanities and computational tools can help analyze large bodies of text, identify patterns, and provide new insights into the work of philosophers. Virtual reality and augmented reality might also offer innovative ways to immerse oneself in the historical context of a philosopher and better grasp their perspective.\n\nWhile these approaches may not completely solve the challenge of understanding past thinkers, they can certainly provide valuable tools and perspectives to help us navigate the complexities of interpretation across different time periods. It\'s an ongoing endeavor that requires collaboration between scholars from various fields and disciplines to shed light on the thoughts and teachings of historical figures like Socrates.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727173716, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAx4WWWbUyttk0IQFql6w5utg4dLi', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 311, 'prompt_tokens': 248, 'total_tokens': 559}} |
| 8 | 739 | [[False, False, False, False, False, True]] | [[0, 0, -1, 1, 4, 7]] | [[1347392237, 1313553817, 1310147070, 1310194111, 1310154343, 1310152611]] | [[<p>The nonexistence of something can be proven if by proven we mean logically deduced, or if mean that it cannot be conceived. We can, for instance, prove that a particular kind of thing cannot exist if, given a set of properties, we show that they lead, taken together, to a contradiction e.g. a square circle. Some proofs for the nonexistence of God, for instance, are proofs for the nonexistence of a particular kind or conception of God.</p>\n\n<p>Now as far as a negative claim having a burden of proof: of course it does, because the "negativeness" of the claim is not in the making-of-a-claim (you can only make "positive" claims, that is, about a state of affairs being such and such, making it a redundant adjective). For instance, when someone makes any claim, they face a burden of proof. The popular example today among armchair intellectuals is the existence of God. In this context, some claim that they don't need to prove the nonexistence of God in order to make the claim that God doesn't exist. This is wrong. They can claim that they don't see any reason to believe in God or that they don't find the proofs convincing without burden of proof, but to claim God does not exist is logically equivalent to making a claim about a state of affairs in which God is not only unnecessary but necessarily absent. In other words, a proof of nonexistence must show that a thing <em>cannot</em> exist. Empirical claims of nonexistence are merely special cases constrained by time and space.</p>\n, <p>You just use existance elimination. Assume ∃x, derive a contradiction and you're done. \nFor instance assuming that there exists a Barber(x) and Shave(x,y) = x shaves y leads to the conclusion ¬∃x (Barber(x) ∧ ∀y (Shave(x, y) ↔ ¬Shave(y, y))) since it's impossible that a barber exists who neither shaves himself nor doesn't shave himself according the law of excluded middle the statement Shave(x, y) ↔ ¬Shave(y, y) can't be true for Shave(c, c) ↔ ¬Shave(c, c)</p>\n, <p>You need to add more propositions, which may not be accepted. You suggested:</p>\n\n<p>(1) <strong>A does not exist</strong></p>\n\n<p>and </p>\n\n<p>(2) <strong>B exists</strong></p>\n\n<p>But (1) has nothing to say about (2) and <em>vice versa</em>, so you need to add another proposition. Perhaps:</p>\n\n<p>(3) <strong>A or B exists</strong></p>\n\n<p>If you could show (1) is correct, then (2) is also correct via (3). But you can't prove (1) if (2) is correct unless you assert something like:</p>\n\n<p>(4) <strong>Either A or B exists, but not both</strong></p>\n\n<p>This is the exclusive "or", which is much harder to show than the usual inclusive "or" found in (3). Binary choices are common in artificial environments (such as computers), but are more difficult to assert in cases where binary choices are not common. In the real world, it's harder to assert something like: <strong>either God exists or evil exists, but not both</strong>. It's not immediately clear that propositions in the form (4) are to be preferred over propositions of the form (3). Intuitively, we'd assume the reverse.</p>\n\n<p>You also brought up the statement: "Nonexistence can never be proven." That can trivially be shown to be false. A standard counterexample would be the existence of a married bachelor, which is false by definition. Another example: I don't have at least a million dollars in my bank account and I can prove it. Or: I don't have a best selling book that I've written or a tattoo that says "Mom" on my arm. So you'd need to add some qualifications to that statement to make it true.</p>\n\n<p>If you buy into inductive logic, flying horses do not exist because their is no evidence for them. We can never be 100% sure of that statement because a single counterexample would invalidate all other evidence, but we can be mostly certain which is good enough for most purposes.</p>\n\n<p>In summary, if you convert a claim of nonexistence into a claim of existence, you must take on the burden of proving the premises you used to do the conversion in addition to proving the new claim. In some cases, the extra burden in not worth the effort. </p>\n, <p>Claims of non-existence are claims that X does not exist. These are indeed not provable. As you yourself point out, your first claim can be reformulated as the second claim. So is it a claim of existence or non-existence?</p>\n\n<p>Well, neither. </p>\n\n<p>"There does not exist a largest prime number" can not be proven as a fact, since that would require you to calculate all prime numbers, and since they are according to the statement itself infinite, you can't do that if it is true. You can't prove it false either, as this would require you to show that all numbers above X is not primes, which again requires infinite calculations.</p>\n\n<p>"For a given prime number p there exists a prime number q larger than p" becomes a provable fact once you substitute "a given prime number p" with a specific number, such as 7, and you get "There exists a prime number larger than 7". This is easily provable by finding it, say, 11. But you can not prove the general statement, because it would require you to test if every number is a prime or not, which requires infinite calculations.</p>\n\n<p><strong>The claim "there does not exist a largest prime number" is therefore not a factual claim at all, but a <em>theoretical claim</em>, and can <em>only be proven true or false within its own theoretical framework</em>.</strong></p>\n\n<p>A real factual claim of non-existence are such as "There are no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal" rel="nofollow">black swans</a>". Famous for being proven false, by encountering <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan" rel="nofollow">black swans</a>. </p>\n, <p>This is, at its root, a question of <a href="http://faculty.matcmadison.edu/alehnen/weblogic/logset.htm#SetTheory" rel="nofollow">set theory</a>.</p>\n\n<p>The statement "X does not exist" can be easily translated to, "X is not a member of the set of things with the property of existence." Existence is the same: "X is a member of the set of things with the property existence."</p>\n\n<p>Very simple, right? So where does the problem come from?</p>\n\n<p>The problem comes from the fact that we haven't enumerated the set of things that have the property of existence. If we had, it would be trivial to prove non-existence. </p>\n\n<p>Most people feel that the set of things that exist can never be enumerated, as the universe is big enough to make this effectively impossible. <em>Therefore</em> it is effectively impossible to prove non-existence.</p>\n, <p>Some claims of existence are mathematical: is a given set of properties consistent? is there a number/object which satisfies a given set of constraints? Whether you set out to prove the positive or the negative, the burden is on the claimant, there's no need to worry about whether it is positive or negative existence or non-existence. There may still be an issue of difficulty (or as your example shows, issues of constructibility and reverse mathematical -logical- axioms (like "p or not p") are allowed).</p>\n\n<p>Other claims are scientific: is there a an instance in the 'real' world? Here the properties are not inconsistent, but not necessary either. Is there a unicorn dancing on my head? (evidence shows not). Is there an atom of atomic number 120? (theoretically its possible, but we can't scan the entire universe, and our current technology only gets us so far). </p>\n\n<p>So for your primes example, existence or non-existence, it doesn't matter (any quantification can be converted from existential to universal or back again with a couple extra negations).</p>\n\n<p>For your 'murderer' vs 'not natural cause' example, you're still playing with the properties of the concepts, which is...mathematical.</p>\n]] | NaN | NaN | NaN | does_not_exist | None | user409 | None | True | 895 | 6 | 6 | 1353161780 | 1310130089 | 1.492087e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/739/what-does-it-mean-that-a-claim-is-a-claim-of-nonexistence | What does it mean that a claim is a claim of nonexistence? | <p><a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/678/does-a-negative-claimant-have-a-burden-of-proof">This question</a> has devolved into a discussion. As I understand the discussion, everything is revolving around the veracity of statement</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Nonexistence can never be proven.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>and on what exactly constitutes a claim of nonexistence. </p>\n\n<p>In particular, if a statement of the form <strong>A does not exist</strong> can be reformulated into an equivalent statement of the form <strong>B exists</strong> does this mean that the former statement is not really a claim of nonexistence? </p>\n\n<p>If a statement of the form <strong>A exists</strong> can be reformulated into an equivalent statement of the form <strong>B does not exist</strong> does this mean that the former statement is not really a claim of existence? </p>\n\n<p>EDIT: Consider the following two equivalent statements</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>There does not exist a largest prime number.</li>\n<li>For a given prime number p there exists a prime number q larger than p.</li>\n</ol>\n | i+mb/EwVq2pRyQ | 27 | zNoWlSCd7gSQew | NaN | None | NaN | 742.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'It sounds like you\'re delving into a philosophical and logical discussion around the nature of existence and nonexistence. The statement "Nonexistence can never be proven" is a complex and subtle one. \n\nIn the realm of logic and philosophy, proving nonexistence can indeed be challenging. It often involves showing that a claim leads to a contradiction or is logically impossible. \n\nRegarding your specific scenarios: \n\n- The statement "There does not exist a largest prime number" is a classic example of a statement about nonexistence. The proof often involves demonstrating that assuming the existence of a largest prime number leads to a contradiction.\n\n- The statement "For a given prime number p, there exists a prime number q larger than p" is an example of a statement about existence. It asserts the existence of a prime number greater than any given prime number. \n\nIn these cases, the statements can be equivalent but focus on different aspects of existence and nonexistence. It\'s important to consider not just the surface-level wording, but also the logical implications and how they relate to the broader context.\n\nI hope this helps with your discussion! Let me know if you have any more questions or if you\'d like to explore this topic further.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727155581, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAsM1hVr5iBPeIlCh2jPWOvd1BttI', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 242, 'prompt_tokens': 182, 'total_tokens': 424}} |
| 9 | 777 | [[False, False, True]] | [[1, 0, 3]] | [[1421623329, 1377304600, 1311288484]] | [[<p>Realität=reality, Wirklichkeit=actuality (Heribert Boeder: Seditions, translated by Marcus Brainard, glossaries). </p>\n\n<p>Two different categories by Kant: reality = Realität is a concept based on affirming a quality (empirically, accessible to the senses) (and not negating or limiting a quality), whereas actuality = Wirklichkeit (or Dasein or Aktualität) is based on a judgement that states an assertoric modality, meaning that something is at a destined time (not at any or all time), and that it is being asserted, not problematic or apodictic.</p>\n\n<p>Actuality implies a judgement not of what is, but whether it is at a destined time, or destined to be. Thus a teleological judgement about what is being asserted.</p>\n, <p>"Effectiveness" is a good word to translate "Wirklichkeit". "Wirken" is to have an effect. Sometimes it is used to denote the actuality, as Weissman said, of something, for example, the empirical world. Reality doesn´t need to be empirical. Anyway, it depends of which philosophy are you translating. "Effectiveness" has an existential connotation that goes along with the notion of Wirklichkeit of Schelling and Kierkegaard.</p>\n\n<p>Kind regards.</p>\n, <p>With help from the <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirklichkeit" rel="nofollow">German Wikipedia on Wirklichkeit</a>, one can roughly put it this way: </p>\n\n<p>Wirklichkeit is a philosophical modality of the being; that of which is the actual case. Realität is used instead of Wirklichkeit in the ordinary German language.</p>\n\n<p>In contexts that seek to distinguish, the concept "Wirklichkeit" is reality, limited to things that have an effect or exercise an effect.\nThe German word Wirklichheit was an translation by Meister Eckhart of the Latin actualitas (related to Aristotle's concept of energeia and ergon). </p>\n\n<p>Actuality and reality could perhaps be used.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer</strong>: I'm far from good at German, and used Google Translate as an aid. Also, it probably depends on which philosopher you're reading.</p>\n]] | 466096.0 | 451.0 | 488.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4e8c44cae69fa6e222aaa86674a1d847?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Hauser | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/488/hauser | True | 4446 | 3 | 4 | 1421623329 | 1310675670 | 1.310685e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/777/what-is-the-appropriate-english-translation-of-the-german-terms-realit%c3%a4t-and | What is the appropriate English translation of the German terms "Realität" and "Wirklichkeit"? | <p>In epistemology & ontology "Realität" relates to what we perceive as our environment - objects, sounds,.... So a optical illusion would be not real in sense of "Wirklichkeit", its not a real existing part/object of the universe, but perceived and constructed from a constructivism point of view. So it belongs to our personal constructed "Realität"</p>\n\n<p>In english "Wirklichkeit" is translated to actuality, objectivity, substantiality, realness, reality, truth, etc. How should these words be translated into the terms of English-language technical philosophical discourse?</p>\n | U+yLPbRs6dG2qw | 42 | yuGGxSrDOnIULA | NaN | None | NaN | 847.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'In the context of epistemology and ontology, the distinction between "Realität" and "Wirklichkeit" in German can be translated into English philosophical discourse as follows:\n\n1. "Realität" can be translated as "reality" or "perceived reality." It refers to the subjective experience of the environment, including objects, sounds, and other sensory perceptions. This term is often associated with how we interpret and experience the world around us, which may include personal interpretations or biases.\n\n2. "Wirklichkeit" can be translated as "actuality" or "objective reality." It refers to the objective existence of entities or phenomena in the universe, regardless of individual perception or interpretation. This term is often associated with the external, independent reality that exists outside of our subjective experiences.\n\nIn technical philosophical discourse in English, these terms can be used to differentiate between subjective perceptions of reality (Realität) and the objective reality that exists independently of individual perspectives (Wirklichkeit). The terms "actuality," "objectivity," "substantiality," "realness," and "truth" can be used in English discourse to capture the nuances of these concepts and to emphasize the distinction between personal constructs and the external, objective world.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727342606, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABf0Yk7InWZmVXBd68EIJO58aI1lY', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 248, 'prompt_tokens': 140, 'total_tokens': 388}} |
| question_id | is_accepted | answer_score | answer_creation_date | answer | owner__account_id | owner__reputation | owner__user_id | owner__user_type | owner__profile_image | owner__display_name | owner__link | is_answered | view_count | answer_count | question_score | last_activity_date | question_creation_date | last_edit_date | content_license | link | title | question | _dlt_parent_id | _dlt_list_idx | _dlt_id | closed_date | closed_reason | owner__accept_rate | accepted_answer_id | locked_date | protected_date | migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color | migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color | migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color | migrated_from__other_site__launch_date | migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date | migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date | migrated_from__other_site__site_state | migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url | migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url | migrated_from__other_site__icon_url | migrated_from__other_site__audience | migrated_from__other_site__site_url | migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter | migrated_from__other_site__logo_url | migrated_from__other_site__name | migrated_from__other_site__site_type | migrated_from__on_date | migrated_from__question_id | community_owned_date | gpt35_answer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1298 | 21805 | [[True]] | [[1]] | [[1424021505]] | [[<p>Nachiketa being a good obedient son, was only following his father's orders. In Katha I. i. 5. Nachiketa says "Among many I am the first;..." this sentence implies that a good son or disciple anticipates his fathers wishes, he does not have to wait to be told to do something before acting.</p>\n\n<p>In the Indian philosophical tradition, once a man says something or gives his word, it is considered a great sin to go back on it or take it back. Although his father had spoken in anger, it didn't matter.</p>\n\n<p>There are other examples of similar circumstances.</p>\n\n<p>When Arjuna brought his wife back with his brothers he called to his mother to come out and see what they had brought home today. Without looking out, their mother (thinking they had brought home some food) called out to share it equally among themselves. To keep it so that their mother would not have to go back on her word, all the brothers married the same woman.</p>\n\n<p>When Rama was supposed to be crowned King, one of his father's minor wives reminded his father of a promise he had made to her and demanded as payment of the promisse that he make her son King. Rama, so that his father would not have to go back on his word, declined the crown and was sent into exile.</p>\n\n<p>The moral of all these is threefold; 1) don't go back on your word 2) always be very careful what you say, and 3) be an obedient son/daughter/disciple no matter how bad the circumstances appear to do otherwise.</p>\n\n<p>In all three instances, Nachiketa, Arjuna, and Rama, it was an opening to great teachings and epics.</p>\n]] | 961274.0 | 48153.0 | 933.0 | registered | https://i.sstatic.net/sw7YK.jpg?s=256 | Mozibur Ullah | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/mozibur-ullah | True | 297 | 1 | 1 | 1424021505 | 1424013331 | NaN | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21805/how-is-the-sacrifice-of-nakiketas-in-the-katha-upanishad-understood-in-indian-ph | How is the sacrifice of Nakiketas in the Katha Upanishad understood in Indian Philosophy? | <p>Kierkegaard wrote a meditation in several parts of the sacrifice (facer sacer - to make holy) by the aged patriarch Abraham of his son Isaac; this is the content of his text <em>Fear and Trembling</em>.</p>\n\n<p>In a curious inversion there is an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katha_Upanishad" rel="nofollow">Upanishad</a>, in which the the situation is reversed and Nakiketas, the son of the sage Vajasrava, disturbed by the quality of his fathers <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sacred_Books_of_the_East_-_Volume_15/Katha-upanishad" rel="nofollow">sacrifice</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Unblessed, surely, are the worlds to which a man goes by giving cows which have drunk water, eaten hay, given their milk, and are barren.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>annoys his father enough that his father angrily swears an oath to send him to Yama (death):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>"Dear father, to whom wilt thou give me?". He said it a second and a third time. Then the father replied: "I shall give thee unto Death."</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Kierkegaard focuses on the sacrifice itself; and the nature of the 'temptation' that Abraham is tempted with: both disobedience and fidelity.</p>\n\n<p>How is the sacrifice of Nakiketas, a sacrifice that he brings upon himself, seen in the context of Indian Philosophy? </p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 72 | sCqpEq7BmsiDgw | NaN | None | 44.0 | 21810.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "The story of Nakiketas in the Katha Upanishad reflects an important aspect of Indian philosophy, particularly in terms of self-sacrifice, seeking knowledge, and the pursuit of truth. Nakiketas's willingness to confront his father about the quality of the sacrifice, even at the risk of angering him, demonstrates his commitment to understanding the nature of sacrifice and its true meaning.\n\nNakiketas's decision to sacrifice himself by seeking Yama, the god of death, represents a profound act of selflessness and courage. By choosing to confront death itself in pursuit of knowledge and truth, Nakiketas embodies the idea of self-sacrifice as a means of spiritual growth and enlightenment. This sacrifice is not imposed upon him by external circumstances, but is a conscious choice he makes in order to fulfill his quest for wisdom.\n\nIn the context of Indian philosophy, this act of self-sacrifice can be seen as a metaphor for the seeker's journey towards self-realization and liberation from worldly attachments. By surrendering himself to death in order to gain knowledge and transcendence, Nakiketas exemplifies the idea of sacrifice as a transformative and liberating force in the pursuit of spiritual truths.\n\nOverall, the story of Nakiketas in the Katha Upanishad offers a powerful meditation on the nature of sacrifice, selflessness, and the quest for truth, reflecting key themes and values that are central to Indian philosophical thought.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346038, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABftuvApXew6aTTHDubeCoCnMT15b', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 289, 'prompt_tokens': 257, 'total_tokens': 546}} |
| 1299 | 21812 | [[False, False]] | [[0, 1]] | [[1424037015, 1424034448]] | [[<p>Metaphysics is the name of a book by Aristotle; and not named by him; it meant simply 'after the physics'; and simply suggested that it was to be read in that order - or understood in that order. Its only much later that it had the connotation that is now generally given to it.</p>\n\n<p>Aristotles metaphysics critiques the notions of his Physics - questions of Place, Time, Body, the Continuum and what is to be understood as a principle of nature ie a Law.</p>\n\n<p>Given this, I'd suggest that it is in one sense, and isn't in another; which isn't that helpful...(personally I tend to think of it as esoteric physics).</p>\n, <ul>\n<li>One might want to check out the very similar post <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8389/should-multiverse-theories-be-rebranded-as-meta-physics">Should multiverse theories be rebranded as meta physics?</a>.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>I will not dare to answer your question myself, since I have no clear definition of metaphysics up my sleeve. Because of this lack of experience, I can also not give you a good compendium. The following is what I found after a quick search:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>The 2 subjects you describe form the basis of some posts tagged as <a href="http://sententias.org/tag/metaphysical-multiverse/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Posts tagged as "metaphysical <strong>multiverse</strong>"</a> by <a href="http://sententias.org/about/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Max Andrews</a>.</p></li>\n<li><p>I'll just mention another public-comments post, dealing with these issues: <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/06/22/137282707/landscaping-the-cosmic-garden" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Landscaping The Cosmic Garden</a>.</p></li>\n<li><p>There is a book called <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/rube15662#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Worlds Without End. The Many Lives of the <strong>Multiverse</strong></a> by <a href="http://mrubenstein.faculty.wesleyan.edu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mary-Jane Rubenstein</a> which sais the following in the book's description:</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In their very efforts to sidestep <strong>metaphysics</strong>, theoretical physicists propose <strong>multiverse</strong> scenarios that collide with it and even produce counter-theological narratives.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Again: I haven't thoroughly looked through these sources. I hope you invoke on an interesting intellectual progress though, wishing you a fruitful and enjoyable contribution to science.</p>\n]] | 4901749.0 | 345.0 | 12159.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/fa5764b5ee7afe97b5a925b24c4fa229?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | Ray Kay | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/12159/ray-kay | True | 148 | 2 | 2 | 1424203873 | 1424032038 | 1.424032e+09 | None | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21812/is-the-idea-of-a-multiverse-considered-metaphysics | Is the idea of a multiverse considered metaphysics? | <p>I know that metaphysics has to do with the fundamental nature of reality. I am just not sure if a multiverse is considered fundamental</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 64 | ulpBStTaYkr3xw | 1.424209e+09 | Duplicate | 0.0 | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "In the realm of metaphysics, the concept of a multiverse is a topic of ongoing philosophical debate. A multiverse posits the existence of multiple, potentially infinite, universes beyond our own observable universe. Different versions of the multiverse theory suggest various ways in which these multiple universes might interact or be related to one another.\n\nSome philosophers and scientists argue that a multiverse is a fundamental aspect of reality, possibly existing alongside or even superseding our traditional notions of a single, self-contained universe. They contend that considering the possibility of a multiverse can help address questions about the nature of existence, the laws of physics, and the nature of reality in a broader sense.\n\nOn the other hand, there are critics who question the empirical basis for the multiverse theory and argue that it is more a speculative idea rather than a proven aspect of reality. They suggest that the concept of a multiverse might not be fundamental in the same way that more basic principles like causality or the nature of consciousness are.\n\nUltimately, whether a multiverse is considered fundamental in metaphysics depends on one's philosophical perspective and interpretation of the available evidence and arguments. It is a complex and multifaceted topic that continues to inspire exploration and debate in philosophical and scientific circles.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346324, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABfyW9MNudYZwTAv6LSXvC0HxNzrB', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 251, 'prompt_tokens': 49, 'total_tokens': 300}} |
| 1300 | 21821 | [[False, False, False]] | [[1, 0, 0]] | [[1424099176, 1424058939, 1424057201]] | [[<p>Kierkegaard is perhaps the main philosopher of the West who argues for actually valuing and embracing the absurd. In Eastern philosophy, I would look at Zhuangzi and the Zen Buddhists.</p>\n, <p>Future and meaning look pretty different in the context of reincarnation, which is part of many cultures - even parts of western groups. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation</a></p>\n\n<p>In such a framework, the "absurd" could be treated as a simple lack of perspective. What if you tried to live your life in one day? Nothing would lead to a greater sense of depersonalization as that. Your life goals wouldn't come close to being met in a single day. What a cosmic joke that one-day life would be. </p>\n\n<p>Dialing things to the other extreme, what if the events of a single lifetime generally led to accrual of experience and personal development, perhaps culminating after multiple lifetimes in a greater mode of existence. </p>\n, <p>Those who believe in the Dao would argue that "the Dao is," and the idea of the Dao being absurd would not be a reasonable statement using Nagel's arguments (given that it could be described as everything and forever). Being part of the Dao is enough for them.</p>\n\n<p>I've found an imprecision in his terminology that may qualify as a loophole, "it will not matter in a million years..." is not entirely proven. A more easy to argue line would be "how much your decisions matter approaches 0 as time approaches infinity," but little is said about how gets there.</p>\n\n<p>There are also some curious systems which have a strange tendency to last longer than expected. Those would allow for long term impact, but would lead a person to believe their life is more absurd than it actually is.</p>\n]] | 4906159.0 | 449.0 | 8851.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9552707c475fc2a722e52cca35d1d0a5?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | ewkochin | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8851/ewkochin | True | 475 | 3 | 3 | 1424099176 | 1424055615 | NaN | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21821/whatre-some-solutions-to-the-absurd | What're some solutions to the absurd? | <p>Thomas Nagel talks about the absurd as being a necessary side-effect of consciousness, and therefor perhaps something we don't actually want to get rid of. Having said that, I'm curious to what other philosophers have proposed (particularly in non-Western philosophy, since Nagel explicitly ignores that) as possible ways of dealing with the feeling of the absurd as it applies to life.</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 67 | sfpz93QJs8Vn/g | NaN | None | 11.0 | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'While Thomas Nagel explores the concept of absurdity from a Western philosophical perspective, there are several non-Western philosophical and spiritual traditions that offer unique perspectives on addressing the feeling of the absurd in life. Here are some insights from different philosophical traditions:\n\n1. **Eastern Philosophy**:\n - **Zen Buddhism**: Zen teachings emphasize living in the present moment and embracing the impermanence of life. Through practices like meditation, adherents seek to cultivate a sense of mindfulness and awareness that can help transcend the feeling of absurdity.\n - **Taoism**: Taoist philosophy promotes the idea of flowing with the natural rhythms of life and embracing the paradoxical nature of existence. By accepting the inherent absurdity of life, individuals can find peace and harmony in the midst of uncertainty.\n\n2. **Existentialism**:\n - **Jean-Paul Sartre**: Sartre suggests that embracing one\'s freedom and taking responsibility for one\'s choices can provide a sense of meaning and purpose in the face of the absurdity of existence. By acknowledging the absurdity inherent in the human condition, individuals can find authenticity and create their own values.\n - **Albert Camus**: Camus, known for his concept of the absurd in "The Myth of Sisyphus," suggests that accepting the absurdity of life can lead to a sense of liberation and freedom. He proposes living life to the fullest, despite the lack of inherent meaning.\n\n3. **Buddhist Philosophy**:\n - **The Four Noble Truths**: Buddhist teachings emphasize the impermanence and interconnectedness of all things. By acknowledging the transient and ever-changing nature of life, individuals can cultivate a sense of acceptance and equanimity in the face of the absurd.\n - **The Middle Way**: Buddhism teaches the concept of finding balance and harmony in one\'s thoughts and actions. By navigating between extremes and letting go of attachment to fixed ideas of reality, individuals can find peace in the face of life\'s inherent uncertainties.\n\nIn summary, various philosophical traditions offer unique perspectives on addressing the feeling of the absurd in life. Whether through embracing impermanence, cultivating mindfulness, accepting freedom and responsibility, or finding balance and harmony, these philosophies provide valuable insights into coping with the inherent absurdity of existence.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346175, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABfw7Kl7Etm8rPqEX4cq2T1dOYcUT', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 457, 'prompt_tokens': 98, 'total_tokens': 555}} |
| 1301 | 21865 | [[False, False]] | [[2, -1]] | [[1424403269, 1424309829]] | [[<blockquote>\n <p>there has been less discussion about ethical philosophy and more discussion about linguistics, philosophy of math</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>While there has been more focus on linguistically motivated issues in the 20th century, ethics has never fallen by the wayside. And while normative ethical questions (such as which ethical system is correct) are still discussed, ethics has taken a closer look at its metaphysical basis (metaethics), as well as the problems associated with putting particular normative ethical theories to work (practical/applied ethics). </p>\n\n<p>As far as your question goes, you may find the survey <a href="http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" rel="nofollow">here</a> useful. Roughly 26% of contemporary philosophers are deontologists, 24% are consequentialists, 18% are virtue ethicists, and 32% are none of these; they may be moral particularists, nihilists, or something else entirely. So there is nothing even close to a consensus about which ethical theory is the correct one. Especially since there is major dispute about whether the notion of correctness applies to ethical theories in the first place!</p>\n, <p>I think its the opposite. Its not that there is a consensus on which ethical system is right, but rather that we are finding that the ethical systems are more bound by the language used to describe them than anything else. We're finding two problems:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>ethical systems defined in natural language inherent the limitations of natural language and its tendency to be ambiguous or imprecise.</li>\n<li>ethical systems defined in mathematically precise languages inherent the raw difficulty of describing some profound concepts which many people intuitively want to see in an ethical system.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>As an example, consider debating the ethics of killing. One ethical system may say it is unethical to kill humans, another may say that it is unethical to kill any sentient creature. We could compare them and contrast them until the cows come home, but consider:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>We need a philosophically meaningful boundary between human and not-human.</li>\n<li>We need a philosophically meaningful boundary between sentient and non-sentient</li>\n<li>We need a definition of "kill" for each of them.\n<ul>\n<li>By corollary, we need to define "life" for each of them.</li>\n</ul></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Those linguistic definitions turn out to be remarkably harder, given modern scientific understanding, than they were a few hundred years ago. Modern medicine on its own has rewritten what it means for a human to be alive. In fact, it has done so much that there are now conflicting definitions such as "brain dead" "clinically dead, " or even "beating heart cadaver" appear. Cryogenics has started adding a new definition, "information theoretic death."</p>\n\n<p>Most philosophy builds from premises to conclusions. If two individuals linguistically disagree on the meaning of a word, no conclusion can be reached. The linguistic issues dominate.</p>\n\n<p>Once agreement on a word is arrived at, then the discussion of ethical systems can take place.</p>\n]] | 1640772.0 | 39.0 | 13730.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0e68912a1a567d2a4ccd95b442675da2?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Christian Gonzalez | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13730/christian-gonzalez | True | 403 | 2 | 3 | 1424403269 | 1424262437 | NaN | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21865/is-there-any-consensus-among-philosophers-on-ethical-systems | Is there any consensus among philosophers on ethical systems? | <p>It seems that in modern philosophy, there has been less discussion about ethical philosophy and more discussion about linguistics, philosophy of math, etc. Is this because there's some sort of consensus on which ethical system is right, if any at all? I'd appreciate your thoughts. </p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 61 | DD9s6N/aQ0+mbA | NaN | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The shift in focus from ethical philosophy to other areas of philosophy such as linguistics and philosophy of mathematics is not necessarily due to a consensus on which ethical system is right, but rather reflects the evolving trends and interests within the field of philosophy.\n\nOne possible reason for the reduced emphasis on ethical philosophy in modern times could be the increased specialization within philosophy itself. As philosophy has become more specialized, different branches of the discipline have emerged, leading to more diverse areas of interest and study.\n\nAnother reason could be the influence of other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology on the study of ethics. These interdisciplinary approaches have led to new insights and perspectives on moral and ethical issues, shifting the conversation away from traditional ethical theories.\n\nMoreover, as society becomes more complex and interconnected, ethical questions often arise in various fields beyond philosophy, such as politics, economics, and technology. This has led to the examination of ethical dilemmas through the lenses of different disciplines, contributing to a broader understanding of moral issues.\n\nOverall, while the focus of philosophical inquiry may shift over time, ethical questions remain important and continue to provoke meaningful debate and discussion within the field of philosophy and beyond. The evolving landscape of philosophical inquiry reflects the dynamic nature of the discipline and the diversity of perspectives that contribute to our understanding of complex ethical issues.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346449, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg0XcippzVRLqhiWJShfxAaBaO4b', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 259, 'prompt_tokens': 77, 'total_tokens': 336}} |
| 1302 | 21867 | [[False, False, False]] | [[2, 2, 2]] | [[1424448997, 1424485249, 1424283718]] | [[<blockquote>\n <p>Would it be the genetic fallacy to invalidate their evidence because\n they are Creationists?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If that is the sole reason for dismissing their argument, then I would say you are guilty of ad hominem. As already pointed out, the genetic fallacy is also known as the <em>fallacy of origins</em> or the <em>fallacy of virtue</em>.</p>\n\n<p>Here is an example of said fallacy:</p>\n\n<p><em>"Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."</em></p>\n\n<p><strong>A logical form</strong></p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>The origin of the claim is presented.</li>\n<li>Therefore, the claim is true/false.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This type of fallacy typically overlooks the present situation in favour of earlier context. It's also important to note that in some cases, the origin of a claim is relevant to the argument at hand, so an argument of the above form is not always guilty of the genetic fallacy.</p>\n\n<p>For instance, a claim by an expert in their area of expertise is likely to be true.</p>\n, <p>You commit a genetic fallacy when you infer that something has certain properties based on that thing's origin, when such an inference isn't warranted. For instance, here's an argument that commits the genetic fallacy: the word 'philosophy' comes from the Ancient Greek word 'philosophia'. The Ancient Greek word 'philosophia' means 'love of wisdom'. So 'philosophy' means 'love of wisdom'. There are a few problems with this argument. But the foremost one is that it infers the meaning of the word 'philosophy' from its etymological roots - and this is incorrect. It may have been true in Aristotle's time that 'philosophy' meant 'love of wisdom', but nowadays it looks closer to something like a singular term - 'philosophy' denotes a particular academic field, or maybe a family of related fields.</p>\n\n<p>So there's an example of the genetic fallacy. As far as your specific question is concerned, it seems like no, that would not be an instance of the genetic fallacy. It looks more like an ad hominem attack. But the important thing to keep in mind is not the label we assign to particular poor forms of reasoning. The important thing is being able to articulate where the reasoning goes wrong. And you don't need to be able to label fallacies to be able to do that. </p>\n, <p>Keeping in mind that all of these informal fallacies have fuzzy borders, this is how I would parse it:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>If you were debating directly with a group of <em>Creation Scientists</em> and you attempted to discredit their arguments solely on the basis of them identifying as <em>Creation Scientists</em> (not on merit) that would be <em>ad hominem</em> or argument against the person. </li>\n<li>If someone attempted to introduce evidence into an argument that originated with <em>Creation Scientists</em> and you attempted to discredit it solely on that basis, that would be the <em>genetic fallacy</em> or argument against the origin.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>In either case the evidence might be valid or invalid, but its worth (or lack of worth) doesn't stem from its origins. <em>Note: There is a <strong>very</strong> big difference between committing these fallacies versus treating the evidence provided by two different groups differently based on actual differences in standards, processes, repeatability and so forth.</em></p>\n]] | 4901749.0 | 345.0 | 12159.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/fa5764b5ee7afe97b5a925b24c4fa229?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | Ray Kay | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/12159/ray-kay | True | 156 | 3 | 3 | 1424505766 | 1424276339 | 1.424489e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21867/if-you-invalidate-evidence-based-on-where-it-came-from-is-that-the-genetic-falla | If you invalidate evidence based on where it came from is that the genetic fallacy? | <p>For example if a group of Creationist Scientists presented evidence for their world view, would it be the genetic fallacy to invalidate their evidence because they are Creationists?</p>\n\n<p>Edit: there are conflicting answers and I am not sure which is correct, can some address why so and so's answer is wrong.</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 56 | xe9UhMYu021CpQ | NaN | None | 0.0 | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The genetic fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone attempts to invalidate a viewpoint by attacking the origins of the evidence or the person presenting the evidence rather than evaluating the evidence itself. In the scenario you described, if Creationist Scientists presented evidence for their worldview, it would be a genetic fallacy to automatically invalidate their evidence simply because they are Creationists. \n\nIt is important to evaluate evidence based on its own merits rather than dismissing it based on the source of the evidence. In a scientific or academic setting, evidence should be evaluated based on the strength of the argument, the quality of the methodology used, and the validity of the data presented, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of the individuals presenting the evidence.\n\nIf there are conflicting answers on whether it is a genetic fallacy to invalidate evidence presented by Creationist Scientists based on their beliefs, it may be helpful to consider why some may argue one way or the other. Some individuals might argue that Creationist Scientists have a bias that could influence their interpretation of evidence, while others might argue that the evidence itself should be evaluated independently of the beliefs of the individuals presenting it. Ultimately, it is important to critically evaluate evidence based on its own merits rather than dismissing it based on preconceived notions about the source of the evidence.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346760, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg5YA3M7ywhZRHlwiT13lCvcAWxz', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 258, 'prompt_tokens': 82, 'total_tokens': 340}} |
| 1303 | 21882 | [[True]] | [[0]] | [[1424456664]] | [[<p>It would make a mockery of the legal system by legally binding things admitted to be immoral.</p>\n\n<p>While I believe what's moral isn't always lawful (and vice versa) there is enough of a connection between law and morality that to blatantly push this dichotomy can raise serious questions about the law.</p>\n\n<p>How would you feel if an authority admitted that the law forced you to do something which that same authority agreed was highly immoral? It becomes very hard to respect a legal system in which such things take place.</p>\n]] | NaN | NaN | NaN | does_not_exist | None | user8572 | None | True | 74 | 1 | 1 | 1424456664 | 1424371706 | 1.492087e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21882/how-would-binding-soldiers-to-war-against-their-will-mock-a-legal-system | How would binding soldiers to war against their will, mock a legal system? | <p><a href="http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/1995/christop.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source</a>: <em>Unjust War ...</em>, by PAUL CHRISTOPHER, from <em>Parameters</em> Autumn 1995, pp 4-8. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Moreover, it is profoundly arrogant for officers to take the view, as some do, that after the national debate takes place, and after the President and Congress have decided to act, then the officer should have the latitude to follow his or her own conscience, either acceding to or declining to follow the orders of the President. And of course, if such an individual assessment is to be morally permissible for officers, then it must be morally permissible for soldiers of all ranks. Accepting this position inevitably leads to one of two unsatisfactory conclusions. ... The other option is to acknowledge that requiring soldiers to go to war against their will is immoral, but to make such a political decision legally binding on them anyway. ..., and <strong>the second one [alternative] would make a mockery of our legal system</strong>. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Would someone please explain the bolded last sentence? How and why would this '<strong>make a mockery ...</strong>' ?</p>\n\n<p>Footnote: <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4894/user4894">This comment</a> helpfully introduced me to this source. </p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 60 | HM+hdDoRb+OiQQ | NaN | None | NaN | 21900.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The bolded last sentence states that making a political decision legally binding on soldiers to go to war against their will would make a mockery of our legal system. This means that forcing soldiers to participate in a war even if they believe it is immoral or against their conscience goes against the principles of justice, fairness, and individual rights that are supposed to be upheld by the legal system.\n\nThis would make a mockery of the legal system because it would be forcing individuals to act against their own moral judgment and personal conscience, which could lead to moral distress, psychological harm, and potential violations of human rights. The legal system is meant to protect individual freedoms and rights, and coercing individuals to participate in actions they believe to be morally wrong undermines the very foundations of the legal system.\n\nIn summary, the statement is arguing that making soldiers participate in a war against their will, even if they believe it is immoral, would undermine the integrity and principles of the legal system by disregarding the individual rights and moral autonomy of soldiers.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346511, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg1Xfej3pNJ2PkoVryGfZ1vViHp0', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 201, 'prompt_tokens': 245, 'total_tokens': 446}} |
| 1304 | 21889 | [[False, False]] | [[0, 1]] | [[1424463313, 1424457807]] | [[<p>Telling truth is the product of an intention. If the mind of the truth teller is uncluttered by an intent to deceive, he/she is not subject to disapproval, in normal circumstances. </p>\n\n<p>But the intent to tell the truth bears a specious connection to what is actually true. </p>\n\n<p>We are begging questions of epistemology - what it is possible to "know." We shall assume, however tentatively, that there is such a thing as "the truth." A person's intent to tell it, however sincere, is only a guarantee of the teller's intention, nothing more. Experience with the human mind teaches that mistakes are such a commonplace, their absence in our thinking is the exception. </p>\n, <p>It depends on how you define honesty and truth.</p>\n\n<p>If Y says it's sunny outside (because Y believes this), but it's cloudy, then is Y telling the truth? Y's claim does not accord with the objective state of affairs, yet it accords with Y's subjective one.</p>\n\n<p>This is key because honesty is the tendency to tell the truth, yet this tendency personalizes honesty in a way that truth doesn't necessarily do. That is, one can easily talk about truth as an objective measure (X is true or false, no matter what Y thinks), but honesty makes things contingent upon Y's intentions. </p>\n\n<p>Then there's the converse; if Y knows Z doesn't trust him/her, and wishes to deceive Z, then Y can tell the truth. So now is Y being honest?</p>\n\n<p>So I'd say the answer depends on whether you're treating truth as an objective measure. Since most people seem to do so, I'll say that in one interpretation of this question, the answer is no -- truth is not inherent in honesty as truth s objective, while honesty is subjective and tied to intent. </p>\n]] | 5818034.0 | 11.0 | 13747.0 | unregistered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/c78464cc7f30917ec1f315dcba1b5c1b?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Johnny | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13747/johnny | True | 191 | 2 | 0 | 1424463313 | 1424414778 | NaN | None | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21889/is-truth-inherent-in-honesty | Is truth inherent in honesty? | <p>Is truth inherent in honesty? In other words, may we establish a correlation, an isomorphism if you will, a functor, perhaps a forgetful one? Between truth and honesty?</p>\n\n<p>Pardon me, this question is very abstractly stated.</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 59 | fwjdqoSYSdjiXg | 1.424984e+09 | Needs more focus | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "That's a very interesting and abstract question! Truth and honesty are related concepts, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Honesty typically refers to being truthful and sincere in one's words and actions, while truth is a broader concept that refers to the state of being in accordance with fact or reality. \n\nOne can be honest without necessarily always speaking the truth, as honesty can also involve being authentic and transparent in one's intentions and actions. Likewise, something can be true without necessarily being communicated honestly. \n\nWhile there is certainly a correlation between truth and honesty, they are not identical concepts. It is possible to establish relationships and connections between them, and to explore the interplay between honesty and truth in various contexts. Ultimately, the relationship between truth and honesty can be complex and nuanced, and may vary depending on the specific situation or perspective.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346573, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg2XBmTu6sQNfQAe04mJVVXtlVNc', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 169, 'prompt_tokens': 72, 'total_tokens': 241}} |
| 1305 | 21904 | [[True]] | [[8]] | [[1424466175]] | [[<p>Any chance you're talking about <em>The Road to Serfdom</em> by Friedrich Hayek?</p>\n\n<p>I haven't read the above book in ages, but I did stumble across the following on an amazon review of a closely related book named <em>Individualism and Economic Order</em>, which is a collection of several essays:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>After dealing with the absurd notion of full information, Hayek turns\n to three issues. First, Socialists once aimed at overcoming the\n results of markets. Now they accept the results of market competition\n as a standard to aim at. Second, an omniscient and omnipresent\n dictator would also require omnipotence to plan an economy using their\n omniscience. Even if they had omniscience, the central planners would\n still have to work through an imperfect bureaucracy. So the notion of\n omnipotence is absurd. We must look at the actual bureaucratic\n problems that planners will face. Third, Perhaps, in a world of\n unchanging data Socialist planners could arrive at efficient prices\n for the means of production through trial and error. But, with\n changing data, the plans of the authority will never match the\n decisions of the 'man on the spot'. Hayek discusses incentive problems\n and knowledge problems at length, and also mentions the potential for\n abuse by concentrating power into the hands a few. This is the subject\n of his book "The Road to Serfdom".</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Given Hayek's economic views, it wouldn't be too surprising to come across an essay which supports the free market over planned economies. </p>\n]] | 4460469.0 | 303.0 | 12141.0 | registered | https://i.sstatic.net/MIEBi.jpg?s=256 | Ystar | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/12141/ystar | True | 278 | 1 | 5 | 1424466562 | 1424465902 | NaN | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21904/libertarian-thought-experiment-about-planned-economy | Libertarian "thought experiment" about planned economy | <p>I once stumbled upon a text from a libertarian (I believe it was a philosopher) setting out a thought experiment to show that even a planned economy run by "omniscient bureaucrats" would produce inferior results than a free market.</p>\n\n<p>Sadly I have forgotten who wrote it and where to find it. Can you give me some suggestions? Thanks!</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 58 | HbOb/0Knx5QWlw | NaN | None | 75.0 | 21905.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The thought experiment you are referring to is likely the "knowledge problem" put forth by the economist Friedrich Hayek in his essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society," which was published in 1945. Hayek argues that the dispersed and tacit knowledge held by individuals in a market economy cannot be fully known or coordinated by central planners, even if they were "omniscient bureaucrats." This results in inefficiencies and inferior outcomes compared to a free market where information is transmitted through the price system.\n\nYou can find Hayek\'s essay in his book "Individualism and Economic Order" or in various anthologies of his works. If you are interested in exploring more of his ideas on this topic, you might also want to look into his other works such as "The Road to Serfdom" and "Prices and Production."\n\nI hope this information helps you in your search!', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346635, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg3XqJpBw0mYm0c2sbcPRINZZ7lp', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 177, 'prompt_tokens': 91, 'total_tokens': 268}} |
| 1306 | 21915 | [[False, False]] | [[2, 2]] | [[1424639817, 1424580164]] | [[<p>A strategy that tends to result in short and easy to understand proofs is to immediately assume the negation of the sentence you're trying to prove and then make derivations until you find a contradiction. Having found a contradiction allows you to deduce the negation of the sentence you assumed that lead to the contradiction (this is a valid inference rule called <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" rel="nofollow">reductio ad absurdum</a></em>). Here is an example:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol>\n <li>~R</li>\n <li>~B</li>\n <li>|-asm: (R v B)</li>\n <li>|-∴ B { from 1 and 3 }</li>\n <li>∴ ~(R v B) { from 3; 2 contradicts 4 }</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n, <p>Assume RvB for use with Negation Introduction, and then use disjunction elimination to work with ~R and RvB to get B: RvB says that at least one of those two sentences, R and B, must be true, and ~R says that R isn't true. It follows that B is true. But ~B. So, a contradiction results from assuming RvB, and you can conclude ~(RvB).</p>\n]] | 5826580.0 | 1.0 | 13765.0 | unregistered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/31a50efeb733a43c2f31c9a15e2db3b8?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG | Owen | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13765/owen | True | 256 | 2 | -2 | 1424639817 | 1424567097 | NaN | None | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21915/sentential-derivation-derive-rvb-from-r-and-b | Sentential Derivation: Derive ~(RvB) from ~R and ~B | <p>I'm having a difficult time deriving ~(RvB) from ~R and ~B. This would be fairly straight-forward if we were allowed to use the DeMorgan Laws, however my professor is not allowing us to use them for this problem set. Any help would be much appreciated. </p>\n\n<p>The rules that I am allowed to use are:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Conjunction Elimination/Introduction</li>\n<li>Conditional Elimination/Introduction</li>\n<li>Negation Elimination/Introduction</li>\n<li>Disjunction Elimination/Introduction</li>\n<li>Biconditional Elimination/Introduction</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Thanks!</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 54 | lrZNtHgdcPpAlQ | 1.452357e+09 | Needs more focus | NaN | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "Sure, I can help you with that! Here's a step-by-step derivation of ~(RvB) from ~R and ~B using the inference rules you mentioned:\n\n1. ~R (Given)\n2. ~B (Given)\n3. Assume RvB for indirect proof and derive a contradiction\n4. Assume R for indirect proof and derive a contradiction\n5. R (Assumption for indirect proof)\n6. ~R (Contradiction with line 1)\n7. Contradiction (Lines 5 and 6)\n8. ~(RvB) (Negation Introduction, lines 3-7)\n\nSimilarly, you can assume B for indirect proof and derive a similar contradiction to prove ~(RvB). As a result, ~(RvB) can be derived from ~R and ~B without using DeMorgan's Laws.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346884, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg7YVZeFjq7L7u8Ooe049ID0i6S1', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 176, 'prompt_tokens': 125, 'total_tokens': 301}} |
| 1307 | 21937 | [[False, False, False, True, False]] | [[0, 1, -1, 3, 0]] | [[1424732315, 1424701372, 1424694778, 1424690121, 1424672683]] | [[<p>Every non-alive thing that we know about "certainly" is not conscious. (In quotes because all knowledge is tentative.)</p>\n\n<p>We don't have a great scientific definition of consciousness, and philosophical definitions are disputed, but in almost every conception it has <em>something</em> to do with an ongoing awareness of events beyond the raw computation of their properties and immediate selection of an action.</p>\n\n<p>Tables, shoes, and even iPhones and computers are right out simply because they don't meet even these minimal requirements. (Computers might if we programmed them the right way, but so far it is extremely doubtful that we're using the right algorithms to even admit the possibility.)</p>\n\n<p>However, it is equally certain that non-alive things <em>could</em> be conscious if only because all evidence is that brains generate consciousness, and brains appear to be sufficiently well-described by deterministic properties plus stochastic noise that in principle a computational model could be made and implemented on a non-living computer.</p>\n\n<p>Then one is tempted to ask: what needs to happen to bridge the gap from the "certainly not now" and the "certainly possible"? We then fall afoul of our lack of scientific understanding: we don't know what is needed (or even quite what we're talking about) biologically to the extent necessary to even hazard an informed guess about when or how we might get there computationally.</p>\n, <p>In Eastern philosophy, everything is pervaded with consciousness. The nature of God is ultimate consciousness, and everything that we perceive as the universe is projected out of that consciousness. Now inanimate objects do not have an objective consciousness as they do not have the facility (i.e. brain) to have an objective consciousness, but they are still permeated by the Supreme Consciousness. </p>\n, <p>No, <strong>no-living matter does not have consciousness</strong> since consciousness requires a "receptacle" in which the "thing" can be conscious, which is possible only if it has the capacity of manipulating ideas, thoughts, imaginaries, ... i.e. if it has a brain.</p>\n\n<p>In other words, <strong>only living matter is susceptible of consciousness</strong>, but not all living things have a consciousness in the sense that we employ. Rudimentary life forms such as worms, bacteria, virus, do have a primitive form of consciousness even though they can hardly be said to be "conscious".</p>\n\n<p>For <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Lupasco" rel="nofollow">Stéphane Lupasco</a>, <strong>consciousness results from the antagonistic relativization between biological matter and physical matter</strong>. He argues that this relativization engenders a matter of a Third kind and he calls it <em>psychic matter</em> or <em>quantic matter</em>.</p>\n\n<p><em>References</em>:</p>\n\n<p>Stéphane Lupasco, "Le Principe d'Antagonisme et la Logique de l'Energie", mann & Co., Paris, 1951.</p>\n, <p>Panpsychism is the position according to which all material things have consciousness.\nSo the answer to your question depends on what kind of possibility you're thinking of. </p>\n\n<p>If logical or conceptual possibility, then yes it's possible (panpsychism is not incoherent).</p>\n\n<p>If you mean metaphysically, or physically, or naturally possible, then this is an open question. It might depend on what we mean exactly by consciousness (cognitive/representational abilities? Qualitative experience?) and also by "living" (autonomous subsistance? Self replication? Lineage with biological organisms on earth?).\nIn any case there is no consensus on the question.</p>\n, <p>ask <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" rel="nofollow">Daniel Dennett</a>. he will tell you we're all just automatons that <strong>think</strong> we have consciousness.</p>\n\n<p>not that i agree with him. i might be more of a fan of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers" rel="nofollow">Chalmers</a>.</p>\n]] | 5830769.0 | 41.0 | 13778.0 | registered | https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/fad28bc4926e15ea9dc3239709583a94?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2 | Winston Smith | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13778/winston-smith | True | 2196 | 5 | 3 | 1424732315 | 1424661006 | 1.424725e+09 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21937/is-it-possible-that-things-that-are-not-alive-possess-conciousness | Is it possible that things that are not alive possess conciousness? | <p>Is it possible that things that are not alive possess conciousness?</p>\n\n<p>I guess it's pretty plausible that animals like dogs or cats feel that they are alive. We humans are there to experience things that are happening to our body. What about things like iPhones, computers, shoes, tables?</p>\n | gV4HqJSvpH2FJA | 53 | 8cZhFppC1ORqGw | NaN | None | NaN | 21946.0 | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | None | NaN | NaN | NaN | {'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Consciousness is a complex and debated topic in the fields of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. While living organisms like humans, animals, and even some plants are believed to have some form of consciousness, the question of whether non-living things can possess consciousness is a matter of ongoing debate.\n\nMost scientists and philosophers argue that consciousness is intimately linked to the functioning of a nervous system, and that in order to be conscious, an entity must have the capacity for subjective experience, self-awareness, and the ability to process information about its environment. Objects like iPhones, computers, shoes, tables, and other inanimate objects do not have a nervous system or the ability to experience subjective states, so they are generally not considered to be conscious.\n\nHowever, some researchers have proposed theories that suggest that consciousness may be a property that emerges from complex systems that are capable of processing information and interacting with their environment in sophisticated ways. These theories suggest that it is possible for some non-living systems, such as artificial intelligence or even certain types of robots, to exhibit behaviors that are similar to consciousness, but this is still a topic of much debate and speculation.\n\nIn conclusion, while living organisms like humans and animals are believed to have consciousness, the question of whether non-living objects can possess consciousness is a complex and controversial topic that continues to be explored by researchers in various fields.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727346947, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABg8Z0THBmqKIPOmtmJHZ09NP5HPD', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 273, 'prompt_tokens': 80, 'total_tokens': 353}} |